Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1857-08-20
CONCLUDED PROM FIRST PAGE.

republican Institutions: And 81. Tho or
ganization of the territories of Utah and
New Mexico. Now the oaly one of these
three points that could have any bearing in
reference to this Kansas Nebraska bill must
be the third-that in relation to the organ
ization of Utah and New Mexico. That
organization in relation to slavery indeed
provided that when such territories sought
admission into the Union as STATES. they
should be admitted with or without slave
ry, as their constitutions might provide,
but it did not repeal any law prohibiting
slavery there. Then the question arises,
was there any such prohibitory law there?
The Republic of Mexico, while the owner
of those territories, had prohibited slavery
in all her borders by a positive law, which
was In full force at the time of the acquisi-
tion of those territories by the United
States. Sir, believe it is we'll establish
ell principle in all civilized nations, that
when one nation conquers or purchases the
territory of another, all laws in force in
such territory at the time of such conquest
or purchase, not inimical to the laws and
institutions of the conquering or purcha-
sing power, remain in full force and virtue
till repealed by positive law. That re-
peal has not yet been made by Congress-
How then can gentlemen say that the or
ganization of the Territories by the COM
promise Of 1850, required the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise. unless they hold
ing FREEDoa there was INNucAL to our in
stitutions, and IPso FAcTo became null and
void upon its incorporation into our Re-
public? Sir, if this be so. have wofully
mistaken the spirit Of our institutions. /
had always supposed that FREEDOM was the
general rule and slavery the exception.
But again. sir, the compromise of 1850
refers to and endorses in direct terms, the
compromise of 1920. \ proviso in the
former compromise reads as follows:
.Proviled that nothing herein contained shall be
construed to impair or qualify anything contained
in the third article of the second section of the joint
resolution FOR annexing Texas TO L. 8; approved
NJ lrch lst 1915, either regards The number of
stttes that INV hereafter be formed of the state
of Texas or Otherwise
Let us see what this third article in the
Joint resolutions annexing Texas was
Part of it reals as follows: "And in such
portion of said Territory of Texas as lies
north of SO deg, 30 m. north latitude, COM
monty known as the Missouri Compromise
line, slavery or involuntary scrvitude shall
be prohibited" Sir, does this sound like
a virtual repeal of the Missouri Compro-
mise" or does it hint at principle that
would tear down that line? Let us see
what the opinion of the distinguished
Stephen Y Douglas was on this point, on
the 4th Of January 1854. With his first
bill for the organization of Kansas and Ne
braska, in which there was no repeating
clause, he reports as follows;
sInasmuch as Congress in 1850, deemed it wise
and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in
controversy then, either by affirming repeating
the Mexican laws, or by any act deciarato-y oil the
intent of the constitution and the extent ofthe pro-
lection offered it to slave property in the Territories,
so your Commute, are not prepared to recon-
mend departure from the course pursued upon that
memorable occ ision, either By Affirming or repeoIiay
the sth section of the Missouri act
That, sir, was the opinion of Stephen y.
Douglas on the 4th of January, 1854, res
pecting the rule or principle established in
1850 with regard to the Territories.
But sir, only twelve short days had pass
ed away, when of sudden ''there fell, as
it were, great scales from his eyes," and he
saw new light, and spake as never man
before had spoken on this point.
On the 10Th, i'll mistake not, of the same
month, and in the same year, he reports the
Kansas Nebraska bill. by which he repeats
the 9Th section of the Missouri Compromise,
and saws that said Sth section is not only
unconstitutional but that the Legislature of
1850 .irtually repealed it?
Sir, think You not that the Presidential
chair hal SOMETHING to do with this mi
raculous change?
Thus much, sir, upon the second prop
osition by which the Democracy have
sought. to sustain the Kansas Nebraska
bill. I now pass to the third and last, that
of ssSquatter Sovereignty" upon which |
shall be very brief. This lgnis Fatuus
which was engendered by the celebrated
Nicholson Letter. has had its course and
its day, but it has quietly disappeared in
the darkness, and now ''none so poor as
to do it reverence" When the Kansas
Nebraska bill was under consideration in
the Senate, Senator Chase of Ohio offered
an amendment which was strictly in accor-
dance with the principles of Squatter Sow
ereignty After the words-''lt being the
true intent and meaning Of this bill not to
legislate slavery into Kansas nor to exclude
it therefrom, but leave the people perfectly
free to choose their own domestic institu-
tions,'' Mr.. Chase proposed to amend by
adding,-"That the people Of the territory,
through their Legislature, should have the
power to exclude slavery
One would have supposed that this
amendment would have met with the cordi-
al support of every advocate of squatter
sovereignty.'' But, sir. every democratic
member Of that Senate voted against i'll
And again, sir, in 1856, Senator Toombs
introduced his .'expunging" bill, by which
he proposed to sweep from the statute book,
large portion of the laws that had been
passed by the "squatter sovereigns" OF Kan
sas--or perhaps should say, by the squat
ter sovereigns from Missouri. do not
propose, sir, to attack that bill. 1t was
right so far as it repealed those odious laws
OF Kansas. But it seems to me that 1t