Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1859-12-29

fishing slavery; and if, as he supposes, peo-s
pie from the Southern States exclusively
go into such Territory with their slaves.
they DO not hold them by virtue of any law
there; and tits no confscation Of property,
they have no property in slaves there. q
sbd3MR. YUIEE.-Suppose they make law
!, MR. TTUMBULL.s IHey cannot. That is
Tie very -Aiag tie Republican party say they
cannot do acltiie in a territorial condition.
The creed of the Republican party as |
understand it, is that you cannot extend
slavery uuder the Federal Government,
into the Territories Of the United States
There may be slavery in a country which
does not belong to the United States; the
United States may acquire that country,
and not abolish slavery, because the right
to. hold slaves existed when the country
was acquired; but it does not follow that
If the country was free when we acquired
= it, men could afterwards have property in
slaves in it, and that is the distinction.
/ The Senator wants to know whether il
is part OF the Republican creed to keep
out of the Union State tolerating slavery,
| which applies for admission. Read the
4 creed;,is there any sncl word in it? Is
there anything that looks like it? Why
not ask me If it is not a part of the Re-
publican creed to keep ont of the Union a
State applying FOR admission into the Uni.
on the constitution of which provides that
her people shall elect her own Governor?
We have never said So What right have
you to assume any such thing? 1t is nc
part of our creed as laid down in our plat
form, to refuse State Admission into this
Union because she may or may not have
slavery. Look into it; see if you can find
any such thing. Why, then PROFOUND q
lqucstion founded upon hypothesis whicl,
has no foundation in the creed Of the
party? nu f fR ian us
If the Senator wants my individual op.
inion, he can have that. | have no con.
| cealment. l stated it here at the first ses-
: sion of Congress | served | stated that
it was not. with me, a fundamental prin-
clple that State should not come into
this Union as slave State. / would re-
, gret the, application of State of that
character; but / have adopted that as no
. part of my political faith, that under no
possible circumstances shall State be
admitted into the Union that tolerates
slavery. The Republican party is not to
be charged with having assumed the ground
that State may not be admitted into the
Union that has slavery. Many such ca
ses have occurred in the history of the
Government. The old Republican party,
from which we learn our principles, did
not keep slave States ont, although they
provided against the extension of slavery,
and if we do that we will never, trust, be
troubled with the application of slave
State for admission. l4r.f.E
The Senator says that the Supreme
Court has decided that Slaves may be le-
! gally held in Territory. l deny it.
The Supreme Court has decided no such
to lay down political doctrines in this
country. 1t may decide case that comes
before it, and by the decisions of the Court
in that case, am willing to abide. The
Court did decide that Dred Scott had no
right to bring suit in the United States
courts, and that is all it decided That
fdecision'is final as to him in that partic-
ular case; but, when the Judges of the court
travelled out of the record and undertook to
lay down political principles for this
Government, they departed lin my judg-
ment. from their line of duty, and the ex-
preston of their opinions is entitled TO no
more credit with me, upon political ques-
tlons, than the expression of the opinion
of the same number of gentlemen off the
bench. Why, sir, there had been decisions
involving the question of the right to gov
srn the Territories before the present chief
Justice presided. Look back, sir, mr.
Mason in the chair to the doctrine pro-
mulgatcd by your own Marshall, the ables:
lawyer that ever sat on that bench, q
southern man. In one of his opinions,
, which is the opinion of the whole and not
l of divided court, he says, that in legisla-
;; ting for the Territories, Congress possess
es the combined powers of the Federal and
State Government If so. and if State
: Government may prohibit slavery then
Congress, possessing in Territory the
powers of State government and Of the
Federal Government combined, may dc
the same thing; and where is your rever-
! ence for the doctrines the Supreme Court,
when you attack that decision? Sir, ,fol
t sixty years that was the doctrine of the
country, acquisced in by all parties. Why
did you assail it, and open up this excl
ting question? L deny that any such de-
D cision has been made as that slavery exists
in Territory, or that the. owner of slave
has right to take him to Territory and
hold him there as slave. s'' '''"7e
- If the Supreme Court of the United
! States should make decision SO utterly
.. variant from the repeated decisions of the
) courts in the Southern States and of the
former decisions of the Supreme Conrt
itself as to say that one person had right
; to hold another slave in Territory by
virtue ofany action ofthc inhabitants of q
: Territory, l shonld legislato against that
asserted right. 1 would acquiesce in the
. decision of the court as TO the particular
case. If A sued for his freedom and the
i court decided that he was not entitled to
it, l would not revolutionize the Govern
!, ment upon that; but-it would be a decision
r in that case, and in that case only, and
: would contest it on the morrow in Tho
next. would contest itday by day, un-
! til the court was reformed, and another
n MARSHALL put at its head, who should ad
t minister the law rs our fathers made If