Weekly American. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1858-1858, 1858-04-17


the Nebraska and Kansas bill--uqatter soysr-
etgnty-whatever its origin, gives us every Terri
tory belonging to the United States-and all we
have now to insist upon is, that IL shall be honest
ly enforced--that Kanses shall have fair play.
Practically there is no difference worth quarreling
about. t.% 'Hbl.
(" 1t appears to me to be perfectly absurd for us
to be grumbling about squatter sovereignty at
the present time, when squatter sovereignty will
make free every inch Of territory now belonging
TO the United States.
"After the acquisition of California, with the
prospect OF the addition of more Mexican terri
tory, when Gen. Cass proposed the doctiine OF
non-intervention, it was an important question,
as il might have led to the introduction Of many
slave States 6at after the South had been com
pletely cheekmated by Caiitornias declaration in
favor Of freedom, zoe had no reason to object to tie
doctrine Of non-interpention, or sqmafter soyer-
eignty. We have now, besides Kansas and Ne
braska, New Mexico, Utah, Minnesota, Oregon
and Washington, making seven Territories, which
will give us seven free States. Some think the
fate Of Kansas doubtful, but the invasion of the
Missouri rowdies, Independent of natural causes,
will make it free State. These borderers came
over first to vote for pro-slavery men-the Sec
ond time to vote against them in the location OF
the Captal-and tile third time to make bus-
ter under Shannon, pl,snder the people, and drink
whisky.
"Under such circumstances / cannot conceive
what we can possibly gain by resisting principle
which has hitherto excluded slavery from our Ter
ritorics.
"The shareholders wllnot get Kansas and they
arc now deprived Of the pretext Of going into the
Territories south of thirty-six degrees thirty min
utes, under that compromise They generally op-
posed non-intervention on that ground, and con
tended for carrying the compromise line to the
Pacific ocean. II Is certainly not for our interest
| nop to have that cOn,promiSe line restored Why
the South should have voted for its repeal is a
question for themselves to settle. They all, at the
time, admitted that Kansas would never be slave
State. ! hope our friends win meet the issue
boldly, and leave the question Of State organiza-
ton to the people of the Territory, who have the
natural and best right to decide for themselves
" Let THE squdtfers settle-but insist that that
principle of the Nebraska act shall be honestly
carried out; that the squatters shall have fair play,
and shall not be controlled byinvaders from Mis-
souri, or any military power whatever. As to
''more slave States there are none in prospect ;
and it is useless to embarrass ourselves by antci-
'pating questions which may or may not arise"
Now, sir, these two wings are standing to-day
exactly where they stood before. Tell me, If you
please, why these men you are huggng to your
bosom on the other side stand with you these men
who were, and now are, rank Free-Soilersg Tell
us why the GREEN amendment is admitted? Which
would you rather have for your bed. fellows? !
tell you the difference is very much like the slaves
reply when asked whether Jim and Nose we're not
very much aliker He said, "Yes, very much ak
indeed; and particularly Nose" Laughter.
is not so much, fear, that they care about gettu
negroes into Kansas, or getting them out 1t is
not any principle of this kind It is, apprehend,
a mere contrivance by which jobbing has been car
ried on in this country TO keep certain men in
power. In fact this whole management and shuf
| fling reminds me Of what occurred in one Of our
North Carolina towns some years ago. A silly fel
low declared himself a candidate for town consta
BILE. The boys had circular printed for him. II
was printed on both sideslike this-with Lecomptor
on one side, and GREEN upon the other. On one
side, he addressed himself 70 the debtors: "Fellow
citizens vote for me- and If am elected constable
will never force you TO payment, even at any ex.
tremity." On the other side was an address to the
creditors: :" If you viii come up and vote for me,
and shall be elected, promise, upon my honor,
will have your money paid, in every instance, at
| the drop OF hat" .HT
Mr.. Chairman, am not disposed to detain this
Committee with a review Of the decision of the
Supreme Court 10 the Dred Scott case. All have
to say is this: that my views upon the constitu.
tonality Of the Missouri compromise were known
long before that decision was made and thought
| that the compromise was not in accordance with
the spirit Of the Constitution. Although my opin-
ion inclines to that of the Supreme Court and did
before the decision was made, yet, from the length
Of time it bad been compromise, was disposed
TO look uponFt as compromise which had better
be abided by. As In the case OF two neighbors
whose boundary line is in dispute-a boundary
which can only be settled by the provisions of a
| deed, and no agreement they might make by psrol
would change the line fxedby The deed, any more
than any agreement between two sections of the
| country by Congress, could be changed. But when
the neighbors have established line by parol agree
ment staked and chopped Il of, and have lived in
| peace, harmony, and prosperity under Il for more
than thirty years, II they should come 10 me and
ask my advice, whether they should break up this
old landmark-now the true line being ascertained
by the deed and 60 back 70 their rights accord
ing to law, / should say, as a man, neghbor, and
as Christian, also, that they had better let the old
landmarks stand and abide by them and by no
means revive old disputes and quarreis. So with
the case Of this Missouri compromise. do not
believe the South is going TO gain anything by its
repeal, and firmly believe that the only reward
the South will ever get from its repeal will be TO
her injury, and anything but an advantage to her
| true interests.
But tits said thatthe only way to pacify the coun-
try Is 10 admit amendments 10 this bill that Il
cannot be bettered that in no way can IL be i'm
proved; that IL has got TO be passed in the shape
In which IL Is presented, even though proposition
should be presented, which, IL carried out, would
more efectuallly pacify and quiet the country and
settle the whole question. Why say they, IL would
be intervention. Nov, let me detain the Commit.
tee a moment TO show ridiculous that idea is.
What is this thing Of non. Intervention Why, is
IL Intervention TO leave the people Of Territory
perfectly free and uutrammeled to settle this with
all other questions in their own way fairly and prop.
erly, subject only to the Constitution Of the United
Statesf
Now, sir, do we consider Il any Intervention, in
the case OF a trial by jury, after the verdict is
announced, to set the same aside and grant a
new trial upon afidavits which clearly prove and
satisfy the Judge that the verdict was obtained by
fraud, by perjury, by deception, or by any NAL
practices Is il any intervention for an honest
and conscientious Judge, after being satisfied of
the facts by reliable asidavts 10 say that he doubt
ed whether the verdict had been fairly obtained,
and 10 the exercise Of the discretion which isvest
ed in him, decide to grant new trial, in order
that justice might be done 2 Is that an inter-
ference with the right Of trial by jury And.
suppose jury Is empanneled to settle the ques-
tion, and they come back TO the Judge, and one
Of the jury gets up and says the verdict Is 30 and
so, and another says II is not 30, and the judge
tells them, gentlemen, you had better retire, get
together again and consult, and agree upon your
verdict and, when you come In, IL viii be record
edn--is that any interference? wanted 10 shov