The daily union., 1856-12-18


and therefore say 10 my friend from South Carolina that
the bill means Of depends upon the eonsuuc-
\ tion OF the bill.
Dir. ORR Exactly
Mr. H. MARSHALL Now, It you who passed the bin
intend to say that the b PASSED, eonainsno matter
bowthe doctrine ofsqnaiter sovereignty then say am
1 egainst II.
Mr. ORR The bill does not refer the matter Of its con-
sructon TO the dem0cfatic party alt IL rers for lis
construc ion ia all lis paris 70 The courts the proper ubu
nal for that object, and will not be driven nv in.
terpetun OF the I'LL because another man. set ot men
choose TO II differently. will wait the decision
Of the oeore will forward and disrnst the
constitutional conclusions to which have come with ref
erence 10 IL.
Mr.. u. MARSHALL. A single remark Tdouot feel dis
posed 10 visit any those 10 Congress who poed
for Kansas aud Nebraska bill Ii had construed
fiand from South Carolina presume construed IT. should
have voted the way. But that is very different
question from the matter which is nor presented. The
party with which the gentleman acts by their Cincinnati
PLATFORM put forth 10 the world the philosophy OF The
Nebraska BILL and the doctrine upon which they
80 into the particular construction of that
bill and that construction, stated by northern demo-
Gratis sanctions squatter sovereignty say most dis
tguished members of the northern section do not cen
sure those voted for the bill but denounce II when
gentlemen make III with that construction, part OF their
future creed.
Mr. ORR. The extent TO which the Cncnnsti platform
GOES understand is simply this it does not attempt
10 construe the Nebra Ia bill at ALL Ii announces
principle OF the democratic party that when the population
OF Territory is sufficient to enfiie 1t 70 admission into
the Unon it shall come, either with without slavery,
tempt to construe the Nebraska bill at all.
The gentleman from Kentucky during the last session OF
Congress than occasion very Industrious
and asduousy oecnped in endeayorng to produce cou
fusion aud distraction in the ranks Of the democratic par
ty. lie occupied with the effort TO convince the coun
try that the democratic party not standing upon pn-
cple; and hence when distinguished friend from ii-
nois LMr Richardson nominated by the democratic
party this House their candidate for the speakersbp
the gentleman from Kentucky tried in various ways TO
identify him with construction which he knew would be
wit
cord He failed then to accomplish the result and now re-
the effort against the entire party to weaken 1t North
and South est#".s.as
Now desire the geneman to understand that the DEM
ocratc party North or South do not attach the import
to this squaer sovereignty which he seems
attach il by the attempts he has made to magnify 1t
as the chief feature of the bill Thegrea
object sought be accomplished in the introduction and
passage Of that bill this the continual sgteben OF
the slavery question up5n the floors OF Congress had pro-
duced dscord and dssenson here 7, had aisnated the
different portions of the from each osher and
hre enpg the stence OF the ITSELF and
hence il thought bSs br majority OF the members OF
the Congress in 1854 transfer s rs bic this aR
tation from the halls OF Congress TO The Territories os
selves. Hence the great and leading feature Ia that bill
TRANSFER The legislation aud power OF Congress on
the slavery and all other subjects the territorial egsa
lures and let the popuEr will there shape and form tue
laws tor their Rovernuent without reslrieon save
the Iroyiso such eg aton should pe consistent with
the constitution and general laws OF the United States.
Ths the idea tbe legislation Of 1854, and
it has ben end rsed in the late election by the people
II
amongst democrats to Whether this feature Of sqaater
sovereignty be in ths bill not Bur the great po!,t
upon which the democratic party at Cincinnati rested
was that the tie Territories had been trans
fsrred from Congress- and carrying tine c,rit and
genius Of institutions had been given TO the people
of the Territories. ! OF those who do not be-
lieye ia the doctrine OF sauRter sovereignty do rot
believe that the Ksnsas-Nebraska bill establishes
ognses squatter sovereignty within the limits Of The
Territories of Kansas ard Nebraska and the process o.
reasoning by which reach thd. result is, that see
no authority in the constitution the United States
hich authorizes Congress pass the Wmo proy1so or
any ant-slayey restrictions in the Territories and 90
apprehend how Congress- no. having the power IL.
self can create fu authority and invest creature With
greater power and authority than II possesses itse
know there other gentlemen belonging TO the dem
ocrac party who think that the territorial leg satures
invested with authority TO prohibit or introduce sase
ny within the Territories
But the gentleman from Tennessee Mr. SxrrHl the other
day struck the point in this controversy and IL ks
all the wind out OF the sails Of my friend from Kentucky
and leaves him high and dry upon land and invite his
attention 10 the statements and arguments In reference
TO it.
say although deny that squaer sovereignty exists
In the Territories Of Kansas and Nebraska by virtue OF this
bill 1t matter practically of little consequence whetber
IL does not; aud think shall be able 10 satisfy the
gen jemsn of that The gentleman knows that in every
slavehoding community of this Union have local eg
lson aud local police regulations appertaning TO that in
suiion without which the Institution would not only be
valueless but the community. Without them
the Shareholder could euOrce bis rights when Invaded
by Others aud II you had local legislation for the pur
value. appeal TO every gentleman upon this floor
who represents savehoding constituency 70 attest the
truth OF what have stated upon that point
Now the legislative authority OF Territory Ia invested
with discretion vote for against lave We think
they ought pass laws In every Territory when the Ter
rtory open TO settlement and shareholders go there TO
protect property But they decline TO pass such
laws what is the remedy2 None, sir. IL the majority Of
the people opposed the institution and IL they do
desire IL ngraed upon their Territory all they have TO do
simply TO decline pass laws In the territorial legisla
ture for its protection and then is we excluded II
the power invested in the territorial legislature and
exercised by them prohibit IL Now, ask the gentle
man. what the practical importance TO result from the
agitation and discussion OF this question whether
squatter sovereignty does does exist3 Practically
| IL is q matter OF little moment
4 Mr. H. MARSHALL Do | understand the gentleman
from South Carolina TO take the position that II II 10 his
constitutional right take his negro Kansas any
other Territory, he believes that bis right becomes Of
practical consequence unless he has territorial legislature
which will protect him in holding that properiy2
Mr. ORR No, sir. The gentleman from Kentucky lives
In saveholdng State and knows that there be Pc
culinr laws passed within the limits Of that State for tho
purpose Of securing that peculiar species Of property Sup
pose party in Territory inyeiges away his slave and
there Is law making IL criminal offence: how do you
reach him2 Suppose individual hsrbors your slave
while in the Territory what remedy have you against
him What remedy have you TO enforce the rights Of the
against trespassers and nermeddles unless You
have local legislature pass laws enforce those rights
undertake 70 say THAI in the State OF Kentucky " there
were no local legislation TO protect the institution the in
stituton would be unmitgaed curse the country.
Mr.. H. MARSHALL. The constitution protects the slave
as property II does not establish slavery forbid il in
his slave holding him property the political law Of this
country protects him in hs property whatever that prop
erty is Of right and the law of Engand furnishes
him the remedies to assert his right IL my slave is beaten