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

founded 1t was the principle that was so unyieldngly
resisted then. 1t this principle the threatened
on Of Congress based upon IT, which the whole South
with voice almost unanimous, including the gentleman
himself then said hsy wouId not and ought not submit
tor Principles, sir not only outposts but the bull
warks of all constitutional liberty; and If these be
yielded taken by superior force the citadel viii
follow. A people who would maintain their rights must
look principles much than to practical reeults
The independence of the United States declared
and established in the yndcaon of abstract principle
Mr. Webster uttered great truth in simpler Lam
gnage-for which he was SO much distinguished than
when he said The American revolution fought
preamble II not the amount OF the tax tea, but
the assertion Tin the preamble OF the bill taking cf the
tax of the right in the British Parliament TO tax the coll
ones without representation that ihers resisted
and it the principle Of unjust and unconstitutional
congressional action against the institutions OF all the
southern States Of this Union that We in 1850 resist
cd by votes, and would have resisted by
If the wrong had been perpetrated Those from The
South who supported the New Mexico and Utah bills did
SO because this principle Of congressional restriction wa
abandoned in them 1t not from any confidence, In
practical point of view that these Territories ever would
be slave States The great constitutional and essents
was the main point This at least was the case with
myself; for when looked out upon vast Territories
Of the West and Northwest did not then, do now,
them particularly the latter becoming slave States Be-
sides the laws of climate SOIL and productions there Is
other law observed by which seemed to be quite s
efficient in its prospective operations in giving different
character to their Institutions and that is the law Of
population There were at the last census near twenty
millions of whites in the United States, End only
fraction over three millions of blacks or slaves The
stock from which the population Of the latter class must
spring is small to keep pace in diffusion expansion
and settlement with the former The ratio is much
greater than seven to say nothing Of foreign inn
migration and the known facts in relation to the tard
with which slave population is pushed into new
countries and frontier setemcnts Hence the greater i'm
portance to the South of rigid adherence prnci-
Piles this subject vital them If the slightest encroach
ments of power permitted submitted to In the
tories they reach the States ultimately And although
looked and still look upon the probabilities of Kansas
being slave State greater than did New Mexico and
Utah. yet voted for the bill of 1854 with the view Of
maintaining The principle much more than did to such
practical results AS southern man. considering the re-
laiion which the African bears to the white race in the
southern States the very best condition for the greatest
good OF both; and as national man. looking to the best
interests of the country the peace and harmony Of the
whole by preservation Of the balance of power far as
be- or after ALL the check to encroachents is
the inability to make them should prefer see Kansas
come into the Unien slave State; but it was not with
the view purpose of eecng that result that voted for
the Kansas BILL any than it with the view or pur
pose of accomplishing similar results New MEXICO
cure the right TO come in slave State il the people
there SO Wished and to maintain principle which then
thought and still think essential to the peace of the
try and the ultimate security of the rights of the South
But 1t has been said If this the principle aimed at
in the repeal of the Missouri restriction why as it MOI
extended to Minnesota and other Territories over which
that restriction extended2 Why it taken of Kansas
and Nebraska and not Minnesota? All have to saw In
reply to this is that the bill Of 1884 did take off where
the bill Of 1920 put it The thirty-second section
of the Kansas BILL which have read for reasons therein
stated declares the eighth section Of the act of 1920 to be
imperative and void and wherever that eighth section
extended this imperative and voidn written upon it
II received acknowledgment before it received
Its you please by this hirysecond section
and extended over Minnesota it repealed there
fully and completely as 1t was over Kansas
Mr. CAMPBELIa Of Ohio perhaps mlsunder stood tbe
genteman ana desire to make inquiry FOR informa-
ton Do understand the gentleman FROM Georgia to take
tue ground that the Kansas Nebraska the
ritories belonging to the general governments
MI STEPHENS. I said that that restriction was de-
cared null and void wherever extended That the s
fect or the language OF the act. 5a 44s.3a .es
Mr, OANPBELL of Ohio. Then would ask him wheth-
he understands that that repeating clause extends be-
yond the territorial l.aits Of Kansas and Nebraska
Mr.. STEPHENS. understand it to be declaration.
that the restriction of 1920 being inconsistent with the
principle established in 1885, is null and void 1t is not
confined to one place more than to another understand
rather to he decaratory than otherwise understand
i as being put in there TO prevent contrary construc-
lion,
Mr.. CAMPBELL, Of Ohio want 10 know the gem
ritories
Mr.. STEPHENS. My opinion is that 1t had no legal
effect at all. Laughter am inclined to think that, ON
strict construction of the constitution the restriction
null and void from the beginning
Mr.. CAMPBELL, Of Ohio. ask the gentleman whether
ne has not recently changed his opinon7
Mr.. STEPHENS. Never on this subject
Mr., CAMPBELL, OF Ohio. | understood the gentle
aan in debate not very long since TO have avowed
Mr.. STEPHENS If the gentleman will turn to the re
port OF that debate, he viii gee what then said to him
this point
Mr.. CAMFBELL OF Ohio. recollect it very we'll The
hst question which put the gentleman declined to
aver but understood in that debate to which he has
may be mistaken but the record can be easily
he declined to give opinion ON the
question of he took tho ground that the exercise Of
would be suh an act OF usurpatcn would Justify hB
section Of the conntry in dissolution of the Union.
MIR, STEPHENS. The gentleman might have under.
tood me to say that the principle Of just division
to make needfu rules and regulations" Congress
might for the sske peace and harmony, make fair di-
vision OF the common lands property; bat when the
principle OF division set aside, ther the attempt to
make 1t was null and void and that ny act of Congress
the whole of the Common property in the
DO an abuse OF power antamount usurpaton, which
would justify resistance.
Mr.. CAMPRELL, of Ohio. should be very happy to
have the gentleman explain that principle of division
Mr. STEPHENS l am discussing another principle
now. For my views that point refer him to the for
wish to divert attention. should take very little interest
in this debate the line pursuing for / think 1t
was he who at the beginning OF the last session Of the
asst Congress spoke with such exulng feelings of what
The kansasNebraska bill had done with its advocates at
The North, and made such great boasts of the ultimate
triumph of the enemies of the principles Of that bill Now
comes into the House at this session. after thu issue has
been made and decided against him. and the
debate HIMSELF but when he he make nothing
out OF it when confined the merits Of the question
raised by himself he is for going off something else
hy sir he said two years ago while admitting that he
was prophet the Of prophet, yet seeming to
moved by the inspiration of prophecy that there never
would be another Kansas majority this hoor He and
his friends appealed to the people, We the people have
decided against them And he comes to this House
nd tha MT irsrico