The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1856-05-09

llle ttIne. ii passed t1e SENATE Wltnout a III
vision, and received d out Of 90 votes in th,
House Of Representatives. Massachusetts, cas-
votes .fug it, and against it. But now otbel
councils prevail, and every man who says thai
this part of the Constitution must be carried out
is denounced as ':negro driver"
But must speak of the question OF slavery il
the Territories. This has long bepn topic o
angry controversy in Congress. The question
was regulated in what was known as the North.
western Territory, by the ordinauce ofI787, 4
kind of compact between tie people Of the Ter,
ritcry, the State of Virginia, and the Uni;ec
States under the first confrdrracy. In the Lou
isiana Territory it was disposed of by The adop-
ton Of what is familiarly known as the Mis-,
souri, CompromlSp-an act of Congress- deca-
ing that slavery should not extend north Of ht
parallel of SO degrees 80 minutes. When Tex
as WAS acquired, the question was disposed Of m
the same way. The acquisition of new Terri
tory from Mexico, at the close Of the war, pre-
srnted the question again. An effort was made
to dispose OF the controversy by extending the
Missouri line 10 the Pacific OCEAN. bot The prop
osition was rejected, aad mainly bv The votes oi
the North. The Bpcessitv for some other mode
of adjustment was thus presented. The party
HON COitif HloSL VI tue -Nt8fdShd ldN.
contributed to the creation of this necessity by
their hostility 10 the Missouri line. There
seemed TO be no alternative left but to refer the
whole question to the people of the Territories.
Clay, Cass, Webster, and others recognized this
policy in the compromise acts OF 1880, and il is
for this principle that the Democratic party are
now contending-the broad doctrine Of non-in-
terventlon By Congress, and the tight Of the peo-
pie in the Territories to decide the question for
then'srlve. on the principle OF selEgovpFnment.
As candidate before the people. ! maintained
tins doctrine thought II sound in theory. and
that IT could not fail in practice. / think so
still. Without stopping to inquire how tar
Congress might legally interfere. was convin-
csd ;hat It was wise for Congress TO forbear.-
The principle OF non-intervention, or popular
sovereignty in the Territories. is in beautiful
harmony with our whole Republican svaem-
The inherent right OF self-government. and the
capacity to exercise that right, are not deter
mined by geographical lines. A man is none
the less competent because he resides in Ter
ritory, nor are bis reserved rights under the
Constitution less Many of YOUR neighbors and
mine have gone to the Territories. Are they
less qualified 10 Judge of their own interests than
when they We're citizens OF Connecticut or
PrnnsyIyanla Certainly P2t i, j js il EsaS2n-
regulate the domestic institutions under which
these men are TO livel Suppose the men Com
posing this meeting had determined 10 90 10
Kansas, would they consent that those who re-
main in Connecticut, through their representa-
tivtS in Congress, should decide their local poll
icy any question The proposition seems
absurd. The question is admittedly one for the
disposition OF a sovereign State, aud so II should
be for the people of Territory. When the
people Of Territory become State, their will
is to be omnipotent. Why should it be restrain
ed during the existence of the Territorial gov
ernmsnt9 Why not permit the inll power Of
the people. under the Constitution, to operate
at once? 1t will do It's work in the end any
how. But this whole question is magniied by
the opposition with the view 10 political caPi-
tai. They speak of the action of Congress as
determining the policy Of the people Of the
Territory forever. That IS not the case. The
people Of State may change their policy as Of
len as they please. Connecticut had the nst-
tuition Of slavery. She could have it again, and
no power on earth dare interfere. Just so with
any other State Kansas, or anv other terrific
~ coming into the Union as a free State, can
a(terward establish slavery, aud oice UersG.-
Congressional control at most, therefore, can
only-operate during the territorial probation,
and the whole controversy is reduced TO this
one point as the people of State can do as
they please on a question OF domestic policy,
shall they be permitted TO do SO while terrific
ry. The Democratic party say yes. The iSms
saw no; and on this the issue is made. But it
is diligently asserted that the Kansas law legiS-
lates slavery into the territory. That is not
true The words are explicit that it is the
'.trGe intent aud meaning OF this act not 10 leg
isatr slavery into any State or territory, nor to
exclude it therrlrom, bu; TO leave the people
Thereof. perfectly free TO iorm and regulate their
domestic institutions in their own way. subject
only 10 the Constitution Of the United States. y
Under this provision it is true Kansas may be-
come a slave State. II might have become
snch in the end, no matter what Congress might
DO in the premises. Specific action, as in the
case of The Missouri line, if constitutional, would
be binding on the people OF the territory; but
The shackles would fall OF 50 soon as they be-
come state. The laws Of nature will more
certainly shape the policy of the State than the
laws OF Congress If the climate and soil IN
vite the institution it viii be difficult 10 keep it
out. lfthey are against il, no agency Of Con-
gress can maintain it. For one, am willing
to leave The question with the people, and re-
gard the question as finally settled in that
wav.
But Democrats arecharge with inconsistency
for having, at one tin,e, favored the Missouri
line; have already given sufficient answer
10 this allegation by showing that the Aboli-
tioniss forced the necessity for new mode Of
adjustment. But how stands the case on the
other side! Wonderfully consistent When
James Lanman, your Senator in 1890, voted
for the Missouri line, this party burnt him II,