Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1857-09-30

made to-day in Philadelphia if they had the
power.
At the time the Proviso was offered, all of
the members from the Free States but two
voted for it, and they were Messrs. Douglas
and M'Cleland, of Illinois. This it will be
recollected was on the day preceding the time
fixed for-tHe- adjoufnment ~scongress. All
of the Pennsylvania members present voted
for it, and regret the absence of one gentle
man who was on visit to his friends.
AtIla o'clock the next day, this proposition
was taken up in the Senate, and John Davis, of
Massachusetts,, took the floor, and perhaps for
the purpose of defeating the Appropriation bill
on political grounds, he talked to the hour of
adjournment. l have authority in saying that
Gen. Cass crossed the Senate Chamber, and
openly rebuked Mr.. Davis for defeating the
most important bill ever brought before it. In
1917, considerable interest was excited in Penn
sylvania, and she was called upon to pronounce
her voice in Legislative Assembly. There
was not to be found then a politician to uphold
the spread of Slavery. The resolution was
substantially to stand by the Wilmot Proviso.
Where the Democratic party then?
The House of Representatives had full
vote and over ninety in all voted in favor. The
Senate had an almost unanimous vote.
Gov. Bigler, who was then Senator, declared
that he wished to stand correct on the record,
and would, therefore, demand the ayes and
noes. He (BIgler) voted aye.
At this time the Slave interest combined and
threatened destruction to any public man who
advocated the Proviso.
In 1916 a President was to elect and Gen.
Cass stood in prominent position. Itbecame
necessary to modify or forego the Proyiso, in
order to expect any hope from the South.
General Cass preferred the forego, and al
though he had been forty years in the service
as Statesman, yet he at that late day sat him
self down to read the Constitution of his
country. Here stood the n North, and there the
South.
After the General had finished reading the
Constitution, he suddenly introduced the doc
trinc of squatter sovereignty, notwithstanding
Territories and States had been admitted under
the old regime before the Constitution was
read.
l am poor man, but 1 will pay 500 to any
one who will discover the existence of squatter
sovereignty previous to the famons Nicholson
letter.
This doctrine of squatter sovereignty never
received the endorsement of the leading states
men of the South, for they denounced it as a
humbug, and preferred the Provso, before ad-
mitting half breed indians and negroes on
footing with citizens who understood the in
stitutions of their country.
Senator Brown, of Mississippi, said at one
time that Mr.. Buchanan abhorred the question
of squatter sovereignty.
Mark the downward progress of the Demo
cratic party, who were the first in supporting
the Proviso.
Who has abandoned principles, they or me /?
Loud cheersl
Let me read an extract from speech of
Richard Broadhead, the Prince Of all Dough
Faceism [laughterl-whose game is to get the
lowest in the dirt to obtain the highest claim.
In a speech, made February 9, IS47, on the
Proviso Mr.. Broadhead said, ssif we had acquir-
ed New Mexico or California, and the bill
before the house was for their admission as a
Territory, or even State, would vote for the
Proviso of my colleague (WilmoD to exclude
| slavery. Let us wait until the Territory was
acquired This was dodge No.
The next dodge was, that it was unnecessary.
as the Territory came to us free, and the
moment man brought his slaves there they
| would be free.
The third dodge was that it was unconstitu
tional.
All history taught us that whenever a bast
purpose was to be accomplished, there wer,
| plenty of helpers to be found to aid Look
for instance, when James 1, ATTEMPTED t,
build up the Catholic Church on the soil o
England, had he any trouble with his Judge
No, not a bit.
bow to the decisions of the courts anC
would not ask any man to raise his arm agains
| them, but there is tribunal under Heavier
will submit my judgment or conscience to.
Take the Supreme Court of PENNSYLVANIA
and was it not an indisputable fact that they
had TO reverse their decisions every five years
to make them be of any authoity? Had not
the Supreme Court of the United States rever-
sed itself on the Dred Scott decision?
A labor question is involved in the slavery
l. controversy 'AAS "ii''S Sl'Aea
black. | leave it to the Southern chivairy
and Democracy to trample down the despised
race of the negro--to strip woman and sell
her babe-bnt may God parylize my arm be-
fore 1 descend to such an act No man can
descend to sueh an act without sinking
deeper and deeper in the scale infamy. /
| leave that to the Democracy deny that this
race is most interested it is the free white
laborer Of the country. lCries, that's SOL