The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1858-02-24

something oil Its history and It's oDlecti put
shall take it only as it is on the statute book
It's enemies have turned its expounders. 1t is
not to be supposed that they have expounded
rightly that which has always met their opposi.
ton. Four years ago there was great clamor
raised vhen VIC attempted to pass that act, al
though it was based upon principles Which have
been affirmed by every branch Of this govern
ment; affirmed by the executive by the legisla-
tive, and by the judicial departments, and sane
toned by the people at the popular elections
When we passed the Kansas Nebraska act in
1854 there was a greater clamor raised than, L
think, can be gotten up in this question OF the
admission Of Kansas into the Union under the
Lecompton Constitution, even with the oppos-
tion Of the Senator from Illinois, Mr.. DoCG-
Las What was that question on which such
violent denunciatons were made; on which the
people were told that liberty was trampled un-
der foot; on which the North WAS called to the
rescue, and IN appeal was made 10 the fleemen
Of that section that their liberties we're taken
away, that the South Wa making aggressions
on them, and that they were dsughlaces ifthey
submittedp
When we came to establish territorial gov
ernmeuts for Kansas and Nebraska, the repre-
sentatves Of southern States OF this Union, who
lldfS tilc lliSbAtNtiOH vi AiSIt
recognized by their laws, affirmed that great
principle, which, after all these struggles and
troubles, has been ended by the proudest and
the speediest vndication, that ever great truth
got from an excited and prejudiced community.
We simply asked you to put no prohibition up
on US or our property We sought no n1van-
tage over you;bn we said: ''thiS is common ter
rtory, and we simply ask that while it is in a
territorial condition we shall be allowed to 60
, there with our property, and you with your
property, and form civil society; and we will
give YOU all the great advantages which are Of
cred by a territorial government, of protection
and peace until you are strong enough to pro-
tect yourselves and come into the Union" We
simply asked that there should be no prohibition
on US or our institutions, or property. That
was all our demand; and the South then asked
for put one thing in reference to that bill. In
1920 in the Sth section Of the act known as an
act to admit Missouri into the Union, and for
other purposes that slavery, or involuntary ser,
vitude, except for crimes should never exist in
this Territory. We said Repeal that because
it is unconstitutional" We came to the legis-
la'ive forum; we went to the judicial forum; we
went to the popular forum, and everywhere We
have received the verdict in our favor by the
That was all we demand led. The clause which
seems to be a bone Of contention, and to have
created trouble, and to have been banded about
between politicians, about popular sovereignty,
was no part or parcel OF the demand or of the
object Of that bilt We are not then to be taught
popular sovereignty. We did not want new
+! lessons on popular sovereignty in 1854. We
had no new theory on that subject. We said
"Herc is law excluding us from the TeTito-
les; repeal it." After consultation, the demo
cratic party, with large body ofthe wings, said
ave will repeal it because it is unjust.n II
was repealed by the gentlemen Of the north
and the south, constituting large majority ot
this house, and majority Of the other, and
maintained, as | have said, subsequently, by
the judiciary and The people. The effect Of that
repeal would have been to leave the people,
when they might come to make their State con
stitution, free to make government to suit
themselves; and, in the meantime. it would adj
nit everybody, and protect every body, while it
was, under the government OF the United States,
common property We declared that when
they come to ask admission into the Union, and
clothe themselves with tho attributes Of SOW
ereignty, they shall be protected in making ii
government to suit themselves and coming into
| this Union with or without slavery, as th:ir
constitution m ght prescribe.
| This was all we wanted. but it was said by
gentlemen from the northern States that this
would he the subject of Misrepresentation, that
this simple repeal might possibly revive the pro.
slavery laws Of Louisiana, and whether it did or
not, it would he so charged by the adversaries
who were raising clamor throughout the whole
North and therefore they asked us to let the
bill interpret itself on this point. That was the
sole reason for the introduction Of the sentence
which seems now to be made in many quarters
the chief Of the corner. 1t was legislative in.
terpreraton OF the effect ofrepoaling the eighth
section Of the act of 1920. We desired nothing
more than that repeal, and this legislative in
depreciation was intended to to prevent mis-
representation in the country. 1t was said 81
will be charged that by repeating the act Of l8
! 20 we restore the slavery laws" and many gen
tle1nen supposed that might be the effect. Tha
however, was not our object. Holding the prln
ciple which Ibid, and the great body OF the gen
tlemen with whom | acted, that slavery is law
frl wherever it vas not prohibited, / was con
! tent to unite with those who held the contrar,
doctrine, that it was lawful nowhere eycep
where it was expressly allowed by statute. Be
ing willing to stand on my own principles, ant
take the conSequen, es Of standing on them,
SAID, 'all | ask cf you is tab,la gasd therefore
if this can be construed as having the effect yo,
fear; if it can be iniuSiously construed agains
YOU in the enon-slaveholdinS States Of the Union
If it will tend to raise prejudice against yol
on this question, and stand in the way of yonl
carrying out this great principle Of constitution
nj law pht the fair Interpretation Of the bill ant
let it speak for itself" Hence, we injected VIA
distinguished member Of the otherHouSe, enc
for long time distinguished member of th
! body, said was stump speech into the bowels
of the bill. 1t was to prevent risapprehen
sion Of it, as I once had occasion to say to tht
honorable senator from New York, Mr.. SE
wARp1 That was the sole motive. That CLAUSE
was that it was:
"fhe true intent anil meaning Of this act i,
not to legslate slavery into any Territory Of
State, nor to exclude it thercfom. but to leave
the people thereof perfectly free to form and reg
ulate their domestic institutions in their owr
way, subject only to the constitution Of tho u
nited States"
They were LEFT perfectly free to make theli
own institutions without interference from Con-
giass, which had assumed in 1890 tho right "a
prescribe { them that they should not. In
! 1920 Cong IS said, ''no matter if every man in
! Kansas, il every man in Minnesots, desires to
make his institutions to suit himself on the sub
iect Of slavery, he shall not be allowed to do So
but we will do it for them" Congress assumed
as matter Of conscience, that it was it's duty
to do this for the people. 10 that we objected,
4 We denied the power and the policy. Upon
the question Of power we have been maintain
| ed by the courts the expounders Of tho laws,
about whom the senator from Illinois Mr.,
TRuMHuLLl seems 10 think 10 little On the
.,:..s f AZ, ,,.aac,,r, nm ho va laa,, la