The Union and eastern journal. [volume] (Biddeford [Me.]) 1854-1858, 1856-08-29

,e firm my belief. This I regard IS the co
q .eouencc-the last in the series Of legisl
@ tive provisions, calculated to effect the san
: object.
1 Gentlemen say they have designed pea
o by Il. The effect Of this policy will be
2 dcpopulate Kansas. In my judgment
' will be only to do what has before been d
t scribed in better language" to make sol
tudo, and call 1t peace" Because you wi
: make nothing else of It SO far rs the c1crcis
of free opinions there are concerned.
Now, sir, have word or two more +
; say in regard to the question of squatte
sovereignty. ! really believe the great fe
yer into which the Senator from Illinois hal
been thrown, has been occasioned by tn,
palpable fact, that he has been compelled
to desert his own acknowledged or professec
principles. What is the doctrine Of squat
ter sovereignty as It has been promulgatsC
here? It is to give the right to the people
of the Territories to form their own institu,
tions as they please, by their own lcgisla.
ton. Is slavery the only thing in this coun.
try that can bc called an institution. !
think I understood afc'Senator from Gcor.
.sia, the other day, to say sbst It is perfect
| ly plain and palpable that we have a right
to lcgislatc on all subjects in relation to thc
Territories, except the question of slavery.
Mr.. TOOMBS. The Senator is very un.
fortunate in quoting me, will reply to
him when he gets through, and suppose !
must pardon his inaccuracies.
Mr.. FESSENDEN. 1 do not intend to
misreprcsent the Senator. -
Mr.. TOOMBS. know tsms, but will
state what my principle is. 1t is clear
one. have argued over and over again,
Congress could delegate to tho Territories
whatever powers it possessed over all the
subjects, and resume them at will but that
Congress having no power on the subject o.
slavery in the Territories, they cannot act
on it. That is my position. 1t may be
right or wrong, but | have argued 1t here
for ten years.
Mr.. FESSENDEN. I understand the
Senator to say, then, that Congress had all
power on every subject except slavery?
Mr.. TO0MBS. Not at all. stated no
such thing.
Mr.. FESSENDEN. Then | have misun-
derstood the Senator. can only say that
have endcavored to understand his argu-
mcnt, but have been unable to do 70. j
know he may say he is not responsible for
my want of understanding but on several
occasions have cxertcd myself to discover
what was the Senator constitutional argu-
ment on this matter, and | have utterly
failed on on any principle Of legal logic oil
which ! am master, to comprehend 1t
But, sir, what is squattcr sovcrcignty?-
If itmcans anything, it means that the pco
plc ofa Territory have the right to legis-
late on all ordinary subjects of legislation,
proper to Government of that nature. II
they have it, it is not with respect to slavery
alone, but it includes all other subjects OF
regulation. If Congress has q right TO con-
troll their legislation in one particular, why
not in all particulars? The doctrine avow.
ed here, over and over again, during the de-
bate on the Kansas Nebraska bill, was, that
all we could do was to organize the Terrific
ry, give 1t a government and put it in oper-
alton, and there we must stop. That was
the principle avowed and sustained. They
have a kind of Legislature there whether
rishtrul or wrongful is not material to this
question, and they have undertaken to pas
laws but now the Senate ntcrlercs, and
undertakes to say that these laws are bad
and outrageous and Congress must interfere
to repeal or abrogate them.I you can abro-
gate their laws on one subject, why not on
all? Ifyou can interfere with their lcsis-
laturc in one particular, why not in al.
particulars? think the honorable Senator
from Ohio (Mr. Pugh) the other day stated
that the laws abrosatcd were iu some way
connected with the act organizing the Terri
tories. What re alton have they to thatt
Can you make anything more out of it than
ordinary legislation on ordinary subjects,
Has II anything to do with tho form OF gov
ernmcnt there? Not at all. 1t is the rela.
ton to u subject that comes under their con-
troll, and is particularly domestic. Why
have We the right to interfere with thesD
laws. five cannot control the whole sub.
ject Of legislation over the Territories? How
can Congress undertake to say, that because
certain parts of their legislation are unwise,
unjust, and impolitic, we will interfere and
abrosate them, and yet have our power
limited as to the whole?
Mr.. PUGlI. If the Senator has reference
to me, beg leave to say to him that | have
have not voted to abrosatc any law in Kan
sas, because thought it was unjust or un.
wise. have simply voted to abrosatc those
laws, which, in my judgement, were con-
trary to the provisions Of the fundamental
organic law of the Territory, and none
other.
Mr.. FESSENDEN. The honorable Scna.
tor took no pains to show how they were
opposed to the organic law Of tho Territory.
1t was remark made by him that he voted
to repeal them for that reason, but he did
not condesccnd to explain to the Senate how,
and in what particulars, they were opposed
to the organic law.
Mr.. PUGH. l cndcavored to do ii, and
was in the act Of doing it, when tho Senator
from Arkansas [Mr. Jolnsonl appealed t'
me not to detain the Senate longer ut tha