Daily national Democrat., 1859-05-14
They Abandon their Ground.

/ Cnuer thls meaning, ycstS'N"y' w f
ted an array of testimony, not to be over
come, in proof of the correctness and univer
SALTY of the Douglas construction of the Kan
sos. Nebraska Bill in 1854 and subsequently,
We continue our extracts on the same point,
to day, and defy the Lecompton press to ex
plain them away.
Hon. J. p Benjamin, Of Louisiana, remark.
ed in the Senate on the 25th of May, 1854, in
reference to the above mentioned bill:
ut proposes to announce as q principle to
the people of the United States that the Gen
erdl Government is not to legislate at all upon
this question of Slavery.
We ask of you the passage of no law; we ask
Of you the enactment of no statute, any fur
ther than to put us back just in that position
occupied by our fathers when they acted up
on the principle which we now invoke. of
leaving each section of the confederacy free
to establish and maintain its own internal
domestic institutions and promote its own
happiness as it sees proper"
hon. J. NJ. Mason, of Virginia, remarked
on the same day in the Senate;
Il say, then, Mr.. President, to sum ur, this
bill is Objectionable in some of its features, it
is true. 1t is Objectionable in that feature of
| it, for one, which does not deny to the peo-
| Pile, the right to legslate on the subject OF
slavery. 1t is also Objectionable IN that
clnuse of it which provides, that forelgners-
those not naturalzed-sha participate IN the
political power of the Territory. These
however are questions OF eXpedienoy alone
There is no principle. lar less any cohstltu'
I I - 81, nd ma nnD n
get the other and higher principle establish
ed ON your statute book, that henceforth
mower is denied TO the Congress of the Uni
led States to legislate for the exclusion of
slavery by Welding the question of eXpedi-
encv. / do not think we shall be rebuked for
bad bargain"
Afterwards in 1856, he said, "those with
whom act have uniformly denied any pow
er whatever in Congress to legislate on the
subject of slavery in the Territories"
Very well, Mr. Masonl And yet you now
tell Stephen A. Douglas that he cannot get
the vote of single Southern S,ate because
he asserts the same doctrine Consistent
cuss, you are
But to make himself still more explicit,
Mr.. Mason added:
"The Kansas bill was intended to delegate
to the occupants of the Territories whatever
power Congress possessed over all subjects of
rightful legislation but of course, it could
delegate no more; and when we denied that
Congress possessed any power to legislate on
the subject of slavery. we of course denied
that the Territorial legislature could have it.
because Congress could not delegate what it
does not possess.
The power to legislate on any ject was by
the terms ofthe bill referred to the Constitu-
ton; and express power was given by an
appeal to the Supreme Court, to determine
whether the legislature could, or could not
rightfully legslate on the subject of slavery
The bill Immediately referred
the question to the Constitution and the Ju.
dietary where we had always been willing to
send it."
Precisely what Douglas contended for in
the great debate of the 2Sd of February last,
when Mason and Brown and Davis were de-
his opinions! Oh wonderfully |
honest and consistent statesmen these
Hon. James A. Bayard, of Delaware, said
81 agree with the honorable Senator from
Louisiana as to the importance Of this princi
pie it seems to include within it the necessi.
ty for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
line The honorable Senator from Virginia,
M. Mason,) assumes substantially the same
position placing the importance Of the bin
the simple ground that it establishes the prin-
ciple of non Intervention by Congress with
the institution of slavery in the Territories
as well as the States of this Union. Mr.. Pre-
sident, | consider that an important princi
pie; and if supposed that the effect of this
bill would be to remove from the Halls of
Congress all agitation in regard to the ques.
tion of slavery hereafter; if supposed that
it would bury forever hereafter this whole
question of abolition would sacrifice al
most any of the other opinions which en-
tertain in order to vote for the ill.,"
Hon. George E. Badger. of North Caro-.
lima. on the 10Th Feb. 1854, declared
"The clause as it stands is ample. 1t sub
mits the whole authority to the Territory to
determine for itself That, in my judgement,
is the place where it ought to be put If the
people of the Territories choose to exclude
slavery, so far from considering it rs n wrong
done to me or to my constituents | shall not
complain of it. 1t is their business"
Hon. Mr.. Petit, of Indiana, present full
blooded Lecomptonite, and lately appointed
by Mr. Buchanan Chief Justice of Kansas, re
marked in the Senate on the Goth of the same
month
ut will be recollected that the people are
expressly authorized to legislate upon all sub
jects whatsoever. slavery included. They
may either establish it or al olish it at their
pleasure and at their will if the Constitution
of the United States allows it. Such is my
understanding of it and such is my desire
that it should be- Bvt to make the question
palmer and clearer and to rid it OF all diff
entities, will suggest, if do not move, the
striking out of the following provision in the
sixth section:
That all laws passed by the Assembly.
and approved by the Governor, shall be sub
mitted to the Congress Of the United States,
and if disapproved shall be null and of none
effect
"'My desire is to authorize the people of
the territory to legislate upon all Legitimate
subjects Of legislation, without let or hind
rance by this Go, ernment'
The clause alluded to was stricken from the
bill, with the distinct understanding that no
Territorial law shonld be repealed by Con
gress-that there should be no appeal as to
the validity of a Territorial law except to the
Supreme Court of the United States
Hon. R. NJ T. Hunter, of Virginia, declar
ed his sentiments on the bill as follows:
THE bill provides that the legislature of
these Territories shall have power to legis.
late over all rightful subjects of Legislation,
consistently with the Constitution. And if
they should assume powers which are thought
to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the
nnmrIs will lnniIn thnt nnnstinn .rhnnnNnr II