Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1857-12-24

new States into the Union.' Hence we
find the Kansas question before US now,
not as an Administration measure, not as
an Executive measure, but as a measure
before us for our free action, with
out any recommendation or interference,
directly or indirectly, by the Administra-
ton now in possession of the Federal gov
ernment. Sir, propose to examine this
question calmly and fairly, to see whether
or not we can properly receive Kansas into
the Union with the constitution formed at
Leoompton.
The President, after expressing his re-
gret and modification and disappointment
that the constitution had not been submit
ted to the people, in pursuance of his in
structious to Governor Walker, and in pur-
suance of Governor Wakes assurances to
the people, says, however, that by the
Kane Nebraska act the slavery question
only was required to be referred to the peo-
pie. and the remainder Of the constitution
was not thus required to be submitted
He acknowledges that as general rule, on
general principles, the whole constitution
seould be submitted; but according to his
understanding of the organic act of Kansas
there was an imperative obligation to SUBJ
NIT the slavery question for their approval
or disapproval, but no obligation to submit
the entire constitution. In other words.
he regards The organic act, the Nebraska
bill. as having made an exception of the
slavery clause, and provided for the dispo-
sition of that question in mode different
from that in which other domestic or local,
as, contradistanguished from Federal ques-
tions should be decided. Sir, permit me
TO say, with profound respect for the Presi-
dent of the United States, that l conceive
that on this point he has committed fun
damental error, an error which lies at the
foundation of his whole argument on this
matter, l can well understand how that
statesman came to fall into
this error. He was not in the country at
the time the Nebraska bill was passed; he
was not party to the controversy, and the
discussion that took place during its pas
sage. He was then representing the honor
and the dignity of the country with great
wisdom and distinction at foreign court
Thus deeply engrossed, his whole energies
were absorbed in conducting great di plo-
matte questions that diverted his attention
from the mere Territorial questions and
discussions then goingo in the Senate and
House of Representatives, and before the
people at home. Under these circums tan
ces, he may we'll have fallen into an error,
radical and fundamental as 1t is, in regard
to the object of the Nebraska bill and the
principles asserted in it.
Now, what was the principle enunciated
by the authors and supporters of that bill
when it was brought forward? Did we
not come before the country and say we
repealed the Missouri restrictions for the
purpose of substituting and carrying out
as general rule the great principle of
self-government, which left the people of
each State and Territory free to form and
regulate their domestic institutions in their
own way, subject only to the constitution
of the United States? In support of that
it was argued here. and have
argued it wherever have spoken in various
States Of the Union, at home and abroad
everywhere l have endeavored to prove
that there was no reason why an exception
should be made in regard to the slavery
question. l have appealed to the people
if we did not all agree. men of all parties,
that all other local and domestic questions
should be submitted to the people. l said
to them, 1--WE agree that the people shall
decide for themselves what kind of Judi
ciary system they will have; we agree that
the people shall decide what kind of a
school system they will establish; we agree
that the people shall determine for them
selves whac kind of a banking system they
will have, or whether they will have any
banks at all; we agree that the people may
decide for themselves what shall be the
elective franchise in their respective States;
they shall decide for themselves what
shall be the rule of taxation and the prin-
ciples upon which their finances shall be
regulated; We agree that they may decide
for themselves the relations between hus
band and wife, parent and child, guardian
and ward; and why should we not, then,
allow them to decide for themselves the re-
lations between master and servant? Why
make an exception of the slavery question
by taking it out of that great rule Of self
government which applies to all the other
relations of life?" The very first PROPOSE
tion in the Nebraska bill was to show that
the Missouri restriction. prohibiting the
people from deciding the slavery question
for themselves, constituted an exception to
a general rule, in violation of the principle
of self-government. and hence that that ex-
ception should be repealed, and the slavery
question. like all other questions. submit
ted to the people, to be decided for them
selves. 20 s3 asres 20 ihoaa ~e}
Sir. that was the principle on which the
Nebraska bill was defended by its friends.
Instead Of making the slavery question an
exception. 1t renewed an odious exception
which before existed. Its whole object
was to abolish that odious exception, and
make the rule general. universal, in its ap-
plication to all matters which were local
and domestic, and not national or Federal.
Tor th;o rsaaon was tha 1anouooa av.,lo,.