Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-01-14


the legislation Of the Territorial government for
laws to protect their property OF whatever kind II
may be. Thus il will be seen, that though there
| may be upon this point difference theoretically,
| involving questions for Judicial decision yet there
| is none, practically, among the friends Of non
Intervention by Congress- as the practical result IL
to place the decision of the question in the hands
Of those who are most deeply interested in It's solu
/ ton, namely, the people of the Territory, who
| have made it their home, and whose interests are
| the most deeply involved in the character OF the
institutions under which they are to live.
POSITION OF MR. BANKS.
| Mr. Banks, of Massachusetts,, had voted Tor the
resolution presented by the honorable gentie-
man from Tennessee Mr.. Zollicofier) yesterday,
and had done so with pleasure He wished TO dis
tinctly say that he did not regard the Kansas ana
| Nebraska bill as promotive of the formation OF
free States, inasmuch IL repeats prohibition Oh
the institution Of slavery from that section OF the
country to which the bill applies.
| He believed in the consttutionality OF that act
which is known as the Wilmot proviso. He be-
eved it to be within the power Of Congress to pro-
| hbit the institution of slavery in Territory be-
| longing TO the United States. Whether he would
advocate the passage of such act in reference to
a Territory where it was clearly unnecessary, be-
cause by the local or existing laws had been al
ready prohibited would depend upon circumstan-
| ces
In regard to the application of this principle to
the Territories imbodied in the bill of 1850, he
would distinctly say that If he thought it was me-
cessary In order to prohibit slavery in these Ter
ritores that the Wmot Proviso should have
been passed, he would have voted for it had he
been in Congress at the time.
He believed that the Constitution of the United
| States does not carry the institution Of slavery
into the Territories of the United States. His un-
Outstanding of that question was based upon the
declaration of Mr.. Webster, that even the Constl-
tuition of the United States itself does not 60 to
Territory until it is carried there by an act OF Con-
gress. Standing there upon this principle, he did
not believe that the Constitution of the United
States carries to any of the Territories OF the Uni
ted States the right to hold slaves there
He recognised the right to the protection OF
property OH the part of the South as well as the
| North in the Territories. When lie spoke OF pro-
perty he did not mean that which was property
only so long as 1t remained In certain States, and
lost that character the moment it left these limits,
but he meant that which is considered property by
the universal laws of the world. He had no wish
! to disturb that property in man which existed un-
der local laws in certain sections Of the country
but such property in his opinion, not protect
ed by the Constitution of the United States when
it exists in the Territories of the United States
He believed that the Constitution OF the United
States was intended to do justice between the
different sections of the country, to the South as
well as the North and no speech or declaration
had ever fallen from his lips. 50 far as he could re-
member, that expressed sentiments different from
these.
Mr.. Banks further said that it had been doubted
whether the institution of slavery existed in these
Territories at the time it was occupied. Without
| going into that matter at all-without resting on
the question whether France, by the decree Of
i 1894, had prohibited the institution of slavery
Il -ba won say hat at
the Congress of the United States should nterdict
the institution in either of those Territories in
der to make them free Territories he thought that
Congress was right in doing it, fit was necessa
ry, in order to give the South the right to carry
their institution of slavery there that the interdic-
ton of 1920 should be repealed, be thought that
/ the Congress of 1858 was wrong in making that
repeal. He could not but say, with the light that
had come to him upon this question, that the in
terdicton of 1920, having abolished slavery, if it
ever existed there the repeal of that Introduction
in 1853, allowing slavery to 60 there Under certain
| possible circumstances, not an act promotive
of the formation Of free States
POSITION OF MR. FULLER
Mr. Fuller, of Pennsylvania, cordially approved
of the resolution which had been adopted. He
felt it his duty in justice to himself and to those
with whom he was acting, to declare the opinions
he entertained, and the course Of action ne would
| pursue under certain circumstances. In answer
i to the specific interrogatores presented, he would
say as to the first, that he did not regard the
Kansas and Nebraska bill as promotive of the for
nation of free States, nor yet did he consider it
/ promotve of the formation of slave States.
1 As to the second interrogatory, relating to the
consttutiolality of the Wilmot Proyiso, he had
never, and did not now, advocate the constitu.
| tionaGty of the Wimot Proviso. He had never
committed himself to the position that if the Ter
ritoral bills were silent en- the subject of slavery
leaving it to the operation of the Mexican laws, he
i would vote for bill imbodying the Wilmot Pro-
| Viso.
j As TO the third interrogatory, he had never la
| ken position on the subject, but was willing to
pronounce upon it now. Slavery existed before
the constitution and, in his Judgment, now exist
1 ed, independent of the constitution. When the
4 people of the confederate States met by their rep
resentatives in convention to form the constitution,
slavery existed in all but one of the States of the
/ Confederacy The people, having the right to hold
slaves, conceded through their representatives
the right to prohibit the importation of them after
the year 1908. They made no concession SO far
as regarded the existence of domestic slavery
They claimed the right, and it was granted to
them, to reclaim slaves in cases of escape. They
claimed the right of representation, and it was
granted He held that Congress had no right to
egislate upon the subject of slavery, and that the
| Territories are the common property Of oil the
States. The people of all the States, therefore,
had right to enter upon and occupy that terrific
ry and were protected by the flag of the country.
He thought that Congress had no right to legisate
it into or exclude it from Territory, and, in his
judgment, the Territorial Legislature had no right
to legslate upon the subject, except 30 far to
protect the citizens of the Territory in the enjoy
ment of their property. He believed he had an
swered all the questions, and had nothing more to
say. @ r
4 MR.. BARKSDALE'S INTERR0GATORIES.
Il Mr.. Barksdale, of Mississippi submitted the fol-
| lowing Intermediates stating that he expected