The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-09-14

|
), If the Constitutions researches into Mr
: Calhoun,s writings had been as thorough a
# they ought to have been before it essayed Z
K explain them, it would not have omitted y
g publish these extracts to show what ne mean
: by ''nOn-aetlo'a," and by saying that he wantet
. mo lao to give the South any advantage" IL
e merely wanted necessary protection to th'
property Of the citizens Of all the States in tn
territories, by the ''umted posoer'' of the gov
ernment. There is certainly no demand fo
"any advantage" in that 1t is what every
citizen has right to claim of the government
for whose maintenance he is taxed.
But says the Constitution, the principle o
'aor-iateruentioa (why does it not adhere e
the proper phrase of non-interference witt
which it started out p is the very basis of ths
compromise measures of 1850, and of thu
:. Kansas Nebraska bill was adopted unani
nously by the Cincinnati Convention, and was
incorporated into the platform framed by thai
body as "the only sound and safe solution o
the slavery question"
All of which is not exactly true as to the
compromise measures which the Southern
Democracy have never endorsed as right in
themselves but which they have agreed tt
abide by or acquiesce in. And it is not true
: of the Kansas Nebraska bill, except in the
sense we have hitherto explained. Upon this
point, we presume our Washington cotempo-
rary will receive the testimony of Senators
who voted for and have continued to sustain
the principles upon which it was based
0mitting here the views of the present Sena-
tors from this State Zone of whom was at that
time in the Cabinet Of Gen. Perce) because
they have been so often quoted in these col.
umns, we will adduce the testimony of others
who have a right to be heard in the settle
ment of this issue:
Mr.. HUNTER.-The course of the debate
has made it necessary for me, in my own vim
dication, to say word or two in regard to the
Nebraska Kansas act.
differ from the Senator from Illinois in re-
gard to the bill, the history Of its inception,
and what was intended by it. As aader-
stand 1t, aCe stood in this position tile South
ern Senator's, believe almost scfthom an ez-
eeption, aoho spoke upon that question: know
did for one, as l have always done from the
time first made my appearance on this floor
maintained that the South had the right u,,-
der the Constitution, Of protection of this prop
erty in the Territories.
| Mr. Clay | do not propose, sir, to reply
to the argument ofthe Senator from Michigan;
but to answer his question. If he had an
swered the question propounded by my friend
from Mississippi (Mr. Davis, ,)by defining what
he understood to be meant by interference,
he would have Saved me, perhaps, the neces-
sity of making any explanation whatever But,
sir, shall be brief; and shall be candid in
defining what understand by the doctrine of
non-interference, and what supposed was the
construction and intention of those who passed
the compromise measure of 1885, Understand
| that 1T pledged Congress neither to leR.slote to
establish, nor to prohibit Slavery ,oitsia tie
| Ier7ltories. To that doctrine subscribe to-
day; but cannot go with the Senator. when
| he goes so far as to maintain that it ties I'D the
hands of Congress, and takes from Congress all
power>to protect property guaranteed by the
| Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme
| Court. If he means to say, that by this doc
| trine of fpeF-interventioH the Densecz zatic party
/ in Congress is pledged to hold its lands still
and see squatter sovereignty prevail SO far as
| to destroy rights not created but sustained by
the Constitution, then differ with him. |
do not maintain or believe that it was intended
| in declaring that Congress would intervene
neither to establish nor prohibit, that it was
intended thereby to abdicate, on the part of
Congress, the right and the duty to protect
rights Of property. could never sustain
such doctrine as that without stultifying
myself, and surrendering the rights of the
people whom | represent; and that doctrine
never win sustain.
Mr.. BENJAMIN. desire to read a line
from speech of mine, by way ofexplanation.
The Senator from Illinois has Quoted passage
of speech that delivered Id The Senate two
years ago, and as he did not quote the entire
passage, desire to read sentence or two be-
yond what he quoted, for the purpose of show
ing the position that took at that time. /
said:
''There is the Kansas BILL Therefore, when
I advocate this bill among my people at home,
conscious that they share my confidence in
the correctness of the principles which here
enunciate, say to them, in all candor and sin
cerity, you are safe under this bilf' Let the
gentlemen of the North, who profess an equal
confidence in what they believe to be consti-
tutional principles on this subject, 90 70 the
same tribunal, and follow the example which
the South has ever set them, of being a law
abiding ans. law-o observing people, and this
question will then be finally settled by tri-
bunaf from which none of us will attempt an
appeal
1t was then considered that this was to be
conclusive Nobody anticipated at the time,
| that after this final settlement an attempt
would be made to legislate in opposition to the
principle settled by the Supreme Court and,
of course, no member from the South could
for moment have entertained the idea of the
Senator from Illinois, that the people of the
Territory, after the decision of the question in
favor of the South, should have the right to
legislate in opposition to the principle thus
guaranteed.
Mr.. BADGER.-The principle of non-inter-
vention recognized by the legislation of 1850,
and Incorporated in the Kansas Nebraska act
of 1850, was distinct and unequivocal repu-
diation of the principles of the legislation of
1920, (the Missouri Compromise,) that Con-
gress had the power, and ought to exercise it,
to exclude slavery from Territories north of
certain latitude, and implicitly admitting it
on the other side Congress was not to legis-
late slavery into, or exclude it from any Ter
| ritory or State. The non-intervention Of the
| Kansas Nebraska act means this and nottinds
more.
| Mr.. GwIN.-I am not going to enter into
this discussion, but wish to state to the SEN
ate that If the Senator from Msnois had giUen
| the same Interpretation as he does nol0 to the
Kansas Nebraska bin sohen that question ,oas
before the Senate, ,seUer should haze goted for
1t. If | had understood that bill in the man
ner in which the Senator now interprets it,
i I,o,,
| vote for it.
/ With this understanding of the bill as it
passed, that it was not the bill the Senator to-
day represented it to be, l say somebody was
cheated. Certainly was, if the author of the
bill had the same view of it then that he has
announced to-day.
Mr. President, undertake to say that when
the Senator speaks for the Democratic free
States, he has no right to speak for one as hold
ing the doctrines he has here maintained, and
that is the State represent. believe that
State, and the Democratic party of that State
| will stand by the constitutional rights of the
States, North or South. That is the view I
had when voted for the Kansas Nebraska bill,
that It did protect the rights, under the Consti-
tuition, to be interpreted by the Supreme Court,
of the citizens of all the States witAin the Ter
ritoyies.
| Mr.. Green, of Missouri, who has been cleo
ted to the Senate since the passage of the BILL
has said
"The doctrine of non-interference by Con-
gress with slavery in the Territories means
and can only mean, that Congress should
neither establish or prohibit it That is an--
Leave these questions to the Constitution and
the Courts. But whatever rights individuals
have in the Territories, may demand, and,
when demanded, must haze adequate protec-
ti0R"
| And so we might extend our quotations to
the end Of the list to prove that the .non-in-
| teryention' of the Kansas Nebraska bill, sim
| ply meant that Congress should not legislate
slavery into nor out of the territories; and
that it did not mean that Congress should not
interpose Its authority to protect whatever
property might be carried there by any of the
citizens Of the several States.
So much for the true Interpretation of the