The Kansas herald of freedom., 1858-10-02

only the interference by Congress in the
Territories, but by the Chief Executive,
and thus leave the people of the Territory
IN reality to make their institutions in
their own way. ........
The Democrats, including Douglas,
voted against the proposition, and thus
repudiated popular sovereignty Again,
IN voting for the Toombs' bill, they re-
pudiated popular sovereignty" for that
was intended to force Constitution upon
the people Of Kansas, without first sub
mitting it for their adoption. And again,
they repudiated that doctrine, with very
few exceptions, in refusing to vote for the
Crittenden- Montgomery bill. Then say
to you to-day, that the Democratic party
is not the author nor the supporter of
the doctrine of popular sovereignty"
But congratulate you, members of the
Republican party, on being, this day, on
the record in favor of that doctrine. Dur
ing the last session of Congress, you know
your Representatives, without an excep-
tion, voted for the same bill which the
Democrats repudiated-the "Crittenden-
Montgomery Bill (Which involved and
included the doctrine of "popular sove-
reignty." And what man has apologized
to you for mis- vote ? What man has in
quired of you even whether you approve
Of that action or not ? They know you
approve of that action, and if they had
not thus voted, you would have branded
them as traitors to their party. So this
party has recorded itself as the supporter
of the doctrine of popular sovereignty"
in tins country. ~
Is there anything to deprecate in this ?
| come now to this question, and l find
that there are some in this party who are
still inclined TO adhere to the old opinion
that it is the right and duty of Congress
to legislate for the Territories. So far as
the affirmation of the right is concerned,
| agree entirely, but concerning the duty, /
do. not agree; for, fellow citizens, by ac-
cident or by providence, we have found
better way. Let us see for a moment
what would be the effect of pressing this
old issue of excluding slavery from the
Territories by law And, first, how can
you make that law effective against the
decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, which declares that slavery
may go into these Territories in spite of
any Law whatever, and that any law in
tended to prevent this, will be unconsti-
tutional ? But, says friend, we will re-
verse the decision of the judicatory But
when? How long? viii not the party
become extinct before that can be accom-
plished, and will it not be futile to at
temptit? 4?
But, even if it be effected, then of what
practical effect would be law excluding
slavery from Territory? Understand
that it is admitted on all hands that law
excluding slavery from any Territory can
be of no binding force, except during the
time that it is Territory for we all
agree that the sovereignty of the States
is one and the same, and that any new
State has the same right to establish slave
cry within its limits that Massachusetts
or Ohio has. Then is it policy for US to
trust to this security, which Is fallacious
and deceptive? For what is the tenden.
cy and effect of law excluding slavery,
and what is its influence upon the people?
Suppose we had law excluding slavery
from Kansas-that the Missouri Com
promise had not been repealed-do you
believe that there would have been Free
State party in Kansas tell you that
it would have been impossible to arouse
sufficient energy in the Free States to car
ry a population there sufficient to control
the Territory, or in any way to shape its
destiny.
There was the utmost Indifference in
the Free States in regard to that Terrific
ry, and if the Pro-slavery party had been
discreet, or had exercised common sagac-
ity, they would have opened that Terri
tory without meddling with the Missouri
Compromise. But by repeating that
Compromise, they outraged the sentiment
of the North. They virtually said, 1--WE
will wrest it from the possession of the
North as the inheritance of freedom, and
will make it ours for the purposes ofslave-
ry." When they said, we will do it, the
North said you shall no. do it, aud the re-
suit was that they have not.done it, and
they cannot do it. cloud applause.) II
this is the effect ofsuch law, if it only
begets a hazardous security, and we have
abundant power to carry our institutions
where We will, ,0hdt do ,re sodnt Of the hol-
lou name Of a law, concerning any Of the
Territories ? Where is the danger? No
man raises question concerning the Ter
ritories North Of 36 degrees, 80 minutes.
b, We regard their destiny as determ'ned
for freedom. South of that line there is
but one Territory, where there can be any
struggle; that Territory isthe Indian Ter
ritory. But where is that situated ? 1t
cannot be one hundredth part so difficult
10 secure that Territory as TO secure Kan
sas. / would rather contend with the
opposition in Arkansas and that part OF
Missouri bordering on the Indian Terri
tory, than contend against the psople Of
Platte purchase that borders on the Terri
tory of Kansas. ..f
Now, if it is fact that We are able to do
better and do more for freedom without a
law than with law, then, say, that in
stead of its being the duty of Congress to
legislate for the Territories, is the duty
of Congress to take the best steps for the
extension of freedom; and in my opin!
ion, the true ground for any party desiring
to secure the freedom of the Territories,
is to work for absolute .non-intervention,
either by Congress, by the Federal Exeeu-
tive, or by any nonresident power what
ever. And I do not borrow this doctrine
from the Democratic party, or from any
principle of that party. 1t is the doctrine
that lies at the foundation of this govern
ment. and which was first inaugurated by
the early settlers. It was in accordance
with this doctrine that the early Con-
gress of this country was founded. ItwaS
embodied in the charter that was given tc
the Plymouth colony, New Haven colo
nv, and Providence plantation. And SC
we have earlier authority than the Dem.
ocratic party for its existence now-and
better authority.
Now, then, can this doctrine be safely
applied Is there any hazard in its ap-
piication2 / have quoted to You already
the instance of Kansas, whereI show yor
not only theory in its favor, but actua
fact. Notwithstanding all the powe
! ,.rFf4aa IT, rns, II al