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

nnnnnsunnsnnnnHnnzI.11.nn1n1lII
the legislation Of the Territorial government for
laws to protect their property of whatever kind u
may be- Thus it viii 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 ls
to place the decision OF the question IN the hands
Of those who are most deeply Interested in Its solu
ton namely, the people of the Territory, who
have Made il 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 for the
resolution presented by the honorable gentle
man from Tennessee Mr.. Zollieoherl yesterday,
and had done so with pleasure. He wished TO dis-
tinctly say that he did not regard the Kansas and
Nebraska bill as promotve of the formation OF
free States, inasmuch Il repeats prohibition OF
the institution Of slavery from that section oil the
country to which the bill applies.
He believed in the constitutionaity of that act
which is known as the Wilmot proviso. lie be-
eved it to be within the power OF Congress to pro-
hibit the institution OF slavery in Territory be-
longing to the United States. Whether he would
advocate the passage of such act in reference to
| Territory where it was clearly unnecessary, be-
cause by the local or existing laws il had been all
ready prohibited would depend upon circumstan-
| ces.
In regard to the application of this principle to
| the Territories imbodied in the bill OF 1890, ne
would distinctly say, that If he thought It was me-
cessary in order to prohibit slavery in these Ter
ritories, that the Wilmot 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 I'M
| derstanding of that question was based upon the
declaration of Mr.. Webster that even the Constr
tuition Of the United States itself does not go to
Territory until it is carried there by act of Con-
gress Standing there upon this principle, ne 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 he spoke OF pro-
perty he did not mean that which was property
only so long as it 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 I'M
der local laws In certain sections of the country,
but such property in his opinion, WAS not protect
| ed by the Constitution of the United States when
it exists in the Territories of the United States.
4 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 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
1Hn4 Il L. Al &c
there-he would say that if it were necessary that
the Congress of the United States should interdict
the institution in either of those Territories in or
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 interdc
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
terdiction of 1920, having abolished slavery, if it
existed there, the repeal of that Introduction
in 1853, allowing slavery to go there under certain
| possible circumstances, was 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
i pursue under certain circumstances. In answer
to the specific nterrogatories presented, he would
say, as to the 6rst that he did not regard the
Kansas and Nebraska bill as promotive of the for
nation of free States, nor yet did he consider 1t
promotive of the formation of slave States.
4 AS to the second interrogatory, relating to the
constitutio.alty of the Wilmot Proviso, he had
never, and did not now, advocate the constitu-
tonality of the Wimot Proviso. He had never
Il - tbo, hat 70 tha
ritorial bills silent en- the subject of slavery,
leaving it to the operation of the Mexican laws he
would vote for bill imbodying the Wilmot Pro-
viso,
i AS to the third interrogatory, he had never ia
ken position on the subject, but was willing te
pronounce upon it now. Slavery existed before
the constitution, and, in his judgment, now exist
ed independent of the constitution. When the
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 thu
Confederacy. The people, having the right to hole
slaves, conceded through their Representatives
the right to prohibit the importation of them afte
the year 1905 They made no concession SO IA
| as regarded the existence of domestic slavery
They claimed the right, and it was granted Il
, them, to reclaim slaves in cases of escape. The,
claimed the right of representation, and it wa
!, granted He held that Congress had no right t
legslate upon the subject of slavery, and that thu
Territories are the common property Of oil th'
| 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 right to legisat'
it into or exclude it from Territory, and, in hi
judgment, the Territorial Legislature had no RICH
to legislate upon the subject except so far as t.
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 +
say.
J MR.. BARKSDALE'S INTERR0GAT0RIES
f Mr.. Barksdale, of Mississippi, submitted the fol
lowing interrogatories, stating that he expecte
|. | each candidate to answer them: