Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-03-09

" waive" the Constitutional question. would yo
have any right to complain You may tel
me they have sworn 10 support the Consii
tuition, and that it ia their duty to decid
the question. But have We not also taken ,hi
osih' And if We may refuse to inquire how fa
We are laid under restraints by the Constitution, il
the discharge of our duties, why may not theyl
But, Mr.. Chairman, it novelty in legislation tc
make laws with express intent that their meaning
sad validity sha! be canvassei by the courts of jus
tice Who ever heard before of laws being framed
with view TO drive the people into the courts7 Ii
should be- the object of all laws to keep them if pos
sbls, out of the courts To attain this end the mos
exact and precise language should always bs employ
I'D and the legislative intent clearly expressed Courts
are designed for the punishment of those who, eher
from wulnsss or ignorance, disobey the law; and i,
the duty Of the law maker to take away any excuse
for this dsohediepcs, by clear expression of his
meaning, and, above all. by reraning from the ex.
ercise of doubtful aud illegal powers that may tend to
provoke resistance.
This notion that the courts have an exclusive or
superior power 10 determine all constitutional quss
tions,i not ancient Federalism, WAS certainly not
part OF the creed of ancient Republicspisn If it be
intended to ngraft it the faith of the Democratic
BILE protest against il. President Jackson properly
said that he must administer the Constitution az he
understood it, and the duty of Congress is not les:
imperative.
have thus, Mr.. Chairman, attempted to show thai
the construction given to this bill by it's Northern
supporters. and, indeed by many of it's Southern sd
vocates aSo, is the only one tina it, language will sd
NIT. But in denying, as some of the Southern msm
bers have DONE that il authorizes the Territorial Ls
gslaures to exercise the powers in question, do they
not seq that they deprive themselves Of all excuse
Tor having voted for the bill7 For if the Territors.
cannot legisae for the establishment or exclusion
slavery, how can slavery ever 90 there, 80 long u,
they remain Tertoriesl Congress, in snnulling the
Missouri Compromise, expressly declares that it il
not to be understood as legissting slavery into
any Territory or State, or excluding it there
from; but as leaving the whole subject to the
people, in the words | have just quoted. Now, i
this only authorized them to act upon this subjec
when they frame State Constitution. aud not before
and If, by the clause known as the Badger provso,
no law or regulation which may have existed prior tC
lSaO, establishing or protecting slavery, is to be re-
vved or put in forcs how is it possible that slavery
To establish IN Congress will not introduce it. Sc
Tar from it, they dlsclam any such intent, and pro
vide that the former laws shall not be- revived pu
in force. Don't tell ns that the Constitution estsb
shes slavery there, for am speaking OF the effec
and operation OF the Nebraska bill, not OF the Con
stitution SAY, that il slavery exists there now, il
is in spite OF all that the Missouri Compromise and
the Nebraska bill have done to prevent it.
But how can gentlemen deny that the bill dale
gafe1 the power to establish exclude slavery when
10 oihloet every ulhu III tuo Cuuutry tuht
the people OF Kansas have been in the open exercise
Of this power ever since the passage of the law7 IT.
in their territorial condition. they had nothing to dc
with the subject, for what purpose men sent ou
from Massachusetts and other Northern States, and
from Virginia and other Southern Ststes7 What was
the meaning OF those earnest appeals and those con
tributons of money to quicken the emigration tc
kansasl Was there nothing TO be donei Were nc
votes to be giveDl Was there no contest TO be de-
cded! Ah! but gentlemen may tell ME that the peo
pie Of Kansas might pass laws they have done, il
favor OF slavery but could not make any against it
Indeed! Then, when these people were authorized
TO form and regulate their domestic institutions in
their oru way. it WAS intended that they were to dc
it only in one way and that was to be- not their own
way, but our way-the Southern way.
No, MIR: Chairman, it ID vain to deny that the con
struction have given TO this clause in the Nebras
ka bill is the only one it will bear. The force of its
language WAS fully appreciated by Southern states.
man only few years ago. Sir, are you curious TO
know the origin OF this language We need not 60
far 10 find it. 1t is discovered with Of the
rable rust OF remote antiquity, although 1t has
come to be regarded with 81 much reverence as to
b" test of political orthodoxy 1t only in June,
1850, that Mr. Douglas, Of Illinois. in opposing the
clause in the compromise bill which provided that
the territorial governments should not egisIate res
pectng African slavery, and urging that il should be
stricken out because, he said he did not want to
perpetuate any institution against the will of the peo
pie, " uttered this sentiment: wish to leave them
free to regulate their own institutions in their own
way"
To be sure II was very terss and pointed re.
mark; but We did not then know that this part
of Mr.. Douglas speech was a few years after
wards to be enacted into law. When it was the
private sentiment Of single Senator, 1t did not
command the approval OF his Southern as,ocistes.
Nay. sir, it was resisted with extraordinary earn
estness and almost with viruleuce. They insisted
on retaining the clause which expressly forbid the
Territorial Legislatures to pass any Law establish
ing or prohibiting African slavery. Tha clause he
moved to strike out, and only two Southern Sena.
tors, Mr.. Clay aud Mr. Underwood, voted for
his motion, while twenty-five voted against it,
| cannot resist the desire to read their names.
They are Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell Ben.
ton, Berrien, Borlsnd Butler Clemens. Dawson,
Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, King, Man.
gum, Mason, Morton, Pesrce, Pratt, Rusk Sebastian
SouIe, Spruance, Turney, and Yule. What proud
reflection it must be for the Senator from Illinois that
he should, at last, have succeeded in stamping his
pithy little saying upon the statue book Of his coun.
try, not only in spite of the opposition Of
the most eminent statesmen of the South,
but with their approval, and by their
help and still more. that they should be now 80
charmed with it TO insist on making this new born
truth a touchstone of fitness for public station. 1t
proper that General Csas, too, should parake Of
this triumph and it not strange that, denounced
he had been in the South for the uttersnce OF sim
lar sentiments 10 his Nicholson letter lie should seizs
the opportunity presented by the debate on the Ne.
braska bill to tell us of his perseverance, and e1ult
over his success. He said
These bills organizing governments for Nebraska
and Kansas graut full legislative power to these Ter.
rirories all questions Of human concern, incim
ding sarery unless restrained by the Constitution OF
the United States"
This doctrine Of the right of the people to legis.
late for themselves, was, what more than any other,
provoked denunciatiOn. Ii was pronounced by Mr.
Calhoun 10 be the most monstrous doctrine ever ad-
yanced by any American statesman.
"AnOther able and eminent Southern Senator con
sidered my opinions extreme on this point that he
said was the only man who entertained them in this
Coamber, almost beyond IT, and in the compromise
COMMITTEES Of thirteen 1t met with little favor, though
zsaousy urged"
81 sn gratiied at this occasion Of rendering Justice
to the consistent Of the Senator from Illinois,
MIR. Douglas, upon this monentous topic. He wRs
tound on the right side, and h;s opinions we're ex.
pressed with equal firmneas and clearness. Il have
always held be said, that the people have right
to settle these questions as they choose. not only
they should be permitted to do while Terrific
ry.'"-February, 1854.
Sir, if |, too, did not yield to the influence which
produced such chapgea in the minds OF thosa whose
authority have been accustomed to respect. il may
bs only an argument of my own insen,bty do
not question the sincerity with which they were sub
mitted 10 by others. All that say is. that simply
retained the views which, bs lore that tims
ed TO hold in common II, considering the forcs of
the mighty wave which then swept over Us, may
feel surprised st my steadfastness. yet feel no re
grst. | rejoice. indeed, at the course pursued
while acknowledge the pain with which differed
from so many of the representatives of the South
1t may be that. In my humble position, over
shadowed by loftier ne!igences, the light of this
doctrine, 30 lately risen above the horizon, has
not yet reached me, Bat protest against the
attempt to take from Congress it's proper control
of the Territories of the United States. Call il
by what name you will, territorial sovereignty;
popular sovereignty, or squatter sovereignty,
oppose aud resist it. What belongs to all the
States cannot be Withdrawn from their manage
msnt by any body of emgrants who may 20 from
any of them. Territory may be acquired by the
Union for high purposes of state. The genera
welfare may demand that it be reserved for uses
wholly different from those to which the inhsbi.
tan,s might wish TO apply it. Must the natona
will be defsstedl Must the public interest, and, il
may be, the public safety yield to the caprice or eel
fshness OF those who can claim no other right to go
vern us than that we have suffsred them to dwell
upon our lsnds1 No, sir. 1t ia both the right anc
the duty Of the States. acting. as they car
only act, through their representatives in Con
.od Ua