Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1857-01-03

does not contain the principle OF Squatter sovefel
enty.sor they have voted for It aud are estopped
from urging it against the Kansas and Nebraska
act For my part, i do not think it rightful sub
iec of legislation and hence do not think the act
or the Constitution confers any such power on the
Legislature and l am satisfied that the Supreme
Court will SO decide, if the question should ever
arise.
Mr. Speaker, when, in 1854, weaccepted the KAN
sas ana Nebraska bill, we accepted it with perfect
understanding of all its provisions We knew that
it referred the question have been examining to
the courts of the country We aimed to refer it to
that tribunal, because it question appropriate
20 the courts. We had confidence in them, and
were willing to abide by their decision. We knew
the act repealed the stigma upon and our institu-
tons which had been standing on the statute-book
for more than thirty years. That commended it to
our favor But above all embraced it because 1t
contained the great doctrine of non-interventon by
Congress; because, under the fair and full opera
ton of that principle, the question of slavery could
no more get into Congress to furnish fuel for the
fires of agitation and to make the main element in
elections; because under it we and our institutions
would to be foot ball in the political arena,
and because nigh. expect peace and security in
stead of the INSTRUMENTATION and insurrecton which
northern fanaticism is beginning to produce in our
midst. We knew that the great evil under which
suffering is the domestic disquiet caused by
congressional agitation, and we embraced that bill
col daily not because it established slavery in the
Territories, for we knew it did not yet because
we thought it insured the establishment of slavery
for leading southern statesmen declared their great
doubt whether slavery would ever be desired by
the people there and thought the stability of
the institution in the southern States depended in
any degree the decision of the people of Kansas.
We embraced it because it removed an odous and
unconstitutional discrimination against us. and pro-
missed to arrest congressional agitation on the sub
ject.
Gentlemen representing the slaveholding States,
who have had so recently an opportunity to learn
the temper and fixed determination of the people OF
those States need not be told that the continued ex-
istence of this Union depends the cessation of
congressional agitation of slavery and that our
return home after the last session Of Congress, we
found those who are most attached to the Union,
and the least in the habit of anticipating its dssolu
ton, declaring sorrowfully, but firmly, that unless
we can have more quiet in the Union, we will be
compelled to separate and place ourselves in posi-
ton to fend off intrusions detrimental to our peace
The South demands peace and peace she must and
will have-not the heavy and Supplying sleep that
follows submission to wrong and insult, but the re-
pose of health and visor-the peaceful enjoyment
of acknowledged rights.
After two years contest ofunparalleled violence
and at times, sir, of such doubtful issue as to
overwhelm the friends of the Constitution and I'm
ion with gloom and despondency-the people have
rendered their final verdict in that high court from
which there is no appeal, in favor Of the Kansas
and Nebraska bill-in favor of peace and union,
and against congressional agitation the subject
of slavery.
Will our opponents submit to the verdict? They
cannot successfully assail it. They cannot hope to
get it set aside. But they can do what defeated
hopelessly Observation-Disclosures generally do what
Moloch in the great pOem counSeled the fallen an.
gels to do, viz dssensions and foment discord
in the ranks Of the vIctors-
(Which, if not victory, is yet revenge"
H. 7 C..xl Il
regret to find, southern Representatve-the hon.
orable gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. II. Marshall.
who voted for the admission of California with her
squater sovereignty constitution, and who is fresh
from contest in which he sustained Mr.. Fillmore,
who instgatcd the squaters to assume the soverei-
gnty of California and in effect, wrest that valua
be acquisition not only from the South, but from
the controa of the Federal Government.
Will the Democratic party, especially will the
southern portion Of it, fall into the snare laid for it
by the Fillmore men Of the South, and the Black
Republicans Of the North? Shall we quarrel over
the bone of contention cast into our midst by the
honorable gentleman from Kentucky? Whatever
others may do, will not. do not believe the Kan
sas- Nebraska bill empowers the Territorial Legsla
ture to exclude the Shareholder with his property.
But am willing for that question to take the course
Of other constitutional questions, and be decided by
the courts the bill intended it should be decided.
II the Legislature cfkansas excludes slavery, and
I
la,urc to do so, will abide by the decision; and
when she applies for admission into the Union, l
will vote for her admission if have seat on this
floor. On the other hand, | hold every Democrat
bound to vote for her admission if she applies with
u constitution establishing or permitting slavery.
We seek not to force the institution on any people
against their WILL 1t is able to vindicate itself and
if its advantages in particular locality not OBJ
vious enough to enable it to contend against
cidental opposition, it will be very important to
the STAKEHOLDER to be permitted to go there.
Hence cannot see that the question as to when
the power may be exercised possesses the Importance
attributed to it by some Of my friends 1t is certain
ly Of too little value to distract the country, divide
the Democratic party, and harass the South with
new issue. All agree that it may be exercised at
the time of framing constitution, and j. is mere
question of time. Every one knows that if the ma.
orty of the Legislature opposed to slavery there
arc multitude of ways in which the STAKEHOLDER
may he harrasscd and kept out by hostile legislation
and by failure to provide remedies for the protec.
ton Of his rights. Practically, the institution can
only be introduced and sustained where tho majority
are willing to TOLERATE it; and great advantage
to the South Of the Kansas Nebraska act is, that
hereafter Congress will stand pledged not to prevent
the people from having it if the majority wish it. 1t
is, in my opinion, beneficent institution, and
wherever it ought to exist it will exist if the people
interested are left free to consult their choice. To
establish it where, from SOIL climate other crcum
stances, it ought not to exist tends to weaken the
institution everywhere, by furnishing plausible
guments against it.
Looking to the relative strength of the slavehold-
ing and non.siaveholding States in the Senate, which
is the only point of view in which the question of
slavery extension affects the STAKEHOLDER, have
no hesitation in preferrng squatter sovereignty to
congressional sovereignty. Ay, sir, would rath
err leave the question to the first hundred persons
who reach the Territory than to this Congress; and
we all know that our chances of impartial justice
from future Congresses are exceedingly gloomy. In
both branches the non.slaveholdng States have ma.
jorities and in the future we far more likely to