The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-01-17

ton and laws Of the United states which are not locally
applicable shall have the force and effect within the ac
Territory OF New Mexico elsewhere within the United
States"
These all the essential clauses in the New Mexico bill
upon the subject Those in the Utah bill need not read
for IL not identical n words they in substance. will
now read the provisions of the Kansas bill on the
subject
'SEc. Is. And be further enacted That all that part Of
the territory Of the United States included within the fol
ated into temporary goveramen by of the Ter
rtory Of Kansas and when admitted State States
osi,sd Uuon with or without slavery as their
situton may prescribe at the time Of their admission
power Of the Territory extend rghtfu subjects
Of legislation consistent with the constitution Of the United
| States and the provisions of this act"
| +" SEC. 49,. And BE- Il Further enacted" I" that
the constitution and all laws Of the United States which
within The elsewhere within the
United States except the eighth section OF the act
March 1870; which, being Inconsistent with the principle
OF by Congress with slavery in the States
and e. recognised ny the q 1900
csred imperative and VOID being the true intent and
State to exclude It therefrom but to leave the
people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their do
II II d hsr own way subject only 70 the
contained shall be construed to revive put in force
any law regulation which have existed prior the
OF 9th March 1890 either protecting establishing prohb
iting, or abolishing slavery"
From this expose will oe seen how clearly the policy
marked out in the New Mexico and Utah bsin 1885,
followed in the Kansas aud Nebraska bill in 1854 The
clauses in that portion OF the bill relating to Nebraska
identical in substance with those have read concerning
Kansas. The second section of the New Mexico bill is
identical in substance with the nineteenth section of the
Kansas BILL The seventh section Of the New Mexico BILL
which confers powerand all the poUer possessed by the
territorial legislature under that bis identical In sub
with the twenty section of the Kansas BILL
conterring like powers upon the territorial legislature
there In both the granted to legislae upon all
rgh subjects Of legsation consistent sOih The consultation
act All the powers the legislature of New Mexico
holds possesses by virtue of the grant in the seventh
seconi and all the powers the legislature of Kansas
holds by virtue of similar grant in the twenyfourh
section of the Kansas BILL II the territorial legsla-
ture, in the case righyully ezclude Slavery
then it in the other and if it cannot in New Mex
leo, then it cannot in Kansas for the hirysecond
ton of the Kansas bill, about which much has been
said account of its repeal Of the Missouri restriction and
Its "squatter sovereignty construction, coniers addi-
tona grant of power This SO clear that argument to
elucdaie it is unnecessary Then why it inserted
have asked This it is said is what has given rise
to all the agitation. This it is said is what kindled
the sectional strife settled and quieted in 1850 This
what has been called the mischievous work designing
demagogues to promote their selfish purposes and objects
This is what gentleman from Ohio Mr. sHEaaAsl said
the other day the ndignity" offered the North
which conservative of that section, who stood upon
the settlement of 1850 could brook and which gave
rise that sectional ansavery and abolition organza
ton which has lately been so sgnaly rebuked. Not So
Mr. Speaker 1t may be that it the occasion, but
the cause of this agitation That sprung from the
still CppOSlOn 10 the TERRITORIAL pOncy
adopted 1850 for before these words in relation the
Missouri restriction were in the bill the agitation was COM
menced. s,et# ..aa.7 .ss -.s. d.
These words it will be remembered were not in the
original bill it reported to the Senate they
put in afterwards by way of amendments and before the
amendment offered, and while the bill stood almost
dentcaly in words certainly in substance, with the
New Mexico and Utah bills far slavery is concerned
abolition denuncations against its provisions
menced. The blood-hounds Of fanatcism already
unleashed and heard in full cry the track of those
whose only and sole object in good faith carry
the territorial policy of 1850 This say in vndication
of the truth Of history as well as in defence of those whose
motives conduct and patriotism have been bitterly
sailed by the abolition leaders at the North who no
less hostile the New Mexico and Utah bills OF 1850 than
they to the Kansas bill Of 1854 and who denounced
abused ysd and aspersed the characters of those who
advocated and defended the of 1850 ranco
rouy they did those who voted for and sustained this
particular clause of the Kansas bill in 1854.
Why them sir these words put the hiry-second
secon Of the bill will tell you. They were necessary
and essential to carry out the policy of 1850 That had to
be done in good faith In spite of clamor coming from
whatever quarter might In the seventeenth section of
the New Mexico bill the constitution and laos of the Uni
ted States not locally inapplcab were extended to that
Territory By the thirty section of the Kansas bill
the constitution AMI lays Of the United States not ocay
sadPpcab were in the same way extended to that Ter
rtoy But in doing this it became absolutely necessary
to erot the eighth section of the of 1920 That section
was prohibition Of slavery BY Congress in The Territory
1t the "Wmot provisU effect 1t was Iocay ap-
pcae Kansas and Nebraska they were part Of The
Louisiana purchase which that PROHIBITION of slavery
north of SO deg 80 min applied Hence il all the laws Of
the United States not locally inappicabe had been ex-
tended to these Terrorie8 IL would have
ment reafmance of congressional restriction an
donment OF which the basis OF the territorial egsa-
ton Of 1850 There such anterior of the United
States applicable to New Mexico and Utah. requiring
eepton in those bills The exception therefore, the Kan
bill became absolutely necessary to maintain the same
policy The words used the proper for the oc
cas0n They are "eycept tho eighth section of the oct"
&C. "whch being iacosistent with the principle of non
intervention By Congres &C. s recognised by the legis
auon OF 1850, COMMONLY called the compromise meas
10 hereby declared imperative and Doid" tn ne words
that follow this exception explanatory Of the effect
OF the exception ITSELF which leave the question OF
slavery in the Territories the people, TO manage conre
aud settle Tor themselves subject restrictions but that
OF tbs constitution OF the United States 1t removed the
subject OF slavery from the action of this government and
left IT where the bills of 1850 lett It, This was the object
and this Is the effect OF the words They give addon
a power 10 the territorial legislature This bill there
lore does nothing but carry out the policy OF 1850 And
how Any msn who In fayor OF the OF 1850 can COM
plain Of or be opposed to- the of 1854
be democratic party, as have said, pledged themselves
In 1882 20 the maintenance OF those have the reso-
luions OF their convention before me- The whg party at
Baltimore did the same thing. They planted themselves
upon the territorial policy OF 1885, "a sal settlement IN
pvtnePs and ~ sSbstanee Of the ticn 10 which the acts
eialsd hodins this policy be esssentiai the nation
atay s nhg party AMI he integrity Of the Unionn and
hsy pledged themselves 30 all attempts TO
eSsunue or renew such agitatonthat is slavery agita
uon on the terorai policy adopted in those billswhen
ever wherever, or however made
Nov, SIR, was redemption OF this pledge to abide by
the seuemsnt I'm principle and substonce of the
aslhtionf Was It's redemption its own violaton2 Was
the pledge Intended 70 be redeemed, il but mock
eyf And here permit to say do not treat this sub
let 10 partsan My object TO build up party
OF 70 pat down another merely for parts sake There are
objects with me- trust higher and wortber and more