, 1859-10-04

supposed to reside In Congress, and we Ind TO
act upon it, wn came square to tue marx anh
Instructed our members OF Congress 10 vote
for prohibition. Sow NC are in favor Of re.
moving The question entirely from tie halls OF
Congreas, and Of leaving it to the people them
selres. Gentlemen, have ne changed. or be- |
come more pro slavery bf removiug this vexa,
tious question from the halls Of Congress and
placing It in the hands Of the peop!e7 That Is
the simple question 10 which ask your earnest
attention. Huso we changed our anti.siarery
notions or riers By advocating the policy OF
leaving this power with tho settlers Of the Ter
rtores themselves, instead Of the politicians at
Washington! Is liberty not safe IN tho hanas |
o. the people Tho set's the Territory ana rsst ate
Of the world. IS in the hands Of the Federal
Legislature ut WashiDgton? -.
Gentlemen, the doctrine entertained By my
friend that Congress shall act wholly upon this
subject, involves the idea TINT the honest pio-
clates 10 assist in overcoming the obstacles thai
nse net In every new State, is not Us safe au
arbiter to settle question rs 10 the extersion
Of slavery into the country which is to be alone
affected by it, as the men who are in the halls
Of Congress-.
We belleye that the people Of q Territory are
| tue safest Of all tribunals to determine what
shall be tie character Of their own domestic in
| stltutonE. Is not that the sound and true
doctrine which ought 10 be carrled out: t'$1es'
! "fes.']
Before going further upon this point. allow
me to a1t1de to his dogma, that Congress can
! prohibit, but cannot extend slavery. Task your
| attention to that doctrine particularly Here
wish to discuss the Constitution and laws ofmy
country as tind them, md not in manner 10
merely crafty the prejudices Of d Northern au-
them rs the5 are, and will abide BY them Us
t!Iey arc, 50 long as they remain the constisu~
tlona1 laws Of the country. lie snys Congress-
| can prohibit, but cannot extend slavery. And
why: Because lie believes the extension Of
slavery is wrong. The Governor Of South Car
Charleston, says:- :-"I nm in favor Of Congress
extending slavery, because believe it is light,
aud do not believe there is any power to re-
strict it, for that is wrong" Who is ia settle
this question between the two eoatcudiug Gov
ernofs: Is Governor Randall to be an infa!li-
nor Of South Carolina, My view is right
yours is wrong, and you must yield: = No gen
tlemen, the Constitution has provided for just
that conflict ofopinion between States aud uleu.
It tns established tribunal to settle that ques-
tion sud Il has settled it hy deciding that aave-
ry may exist under the Constitution. There
las never been member Of the Supreme Court
oftle United States, coming from the North or
South, East or West, WHO has declared that
| slavery does not exist under the Constitution.
aud however it mar please your Northern
s.e''ugs 10 say it should not, get it does exist
there.
Y
But, gentlemen, If you raise the question Us
to whether the power shall be exercised ut
Washington by the politicians, or By the pio.
neers Of 8 new territory. the Democratic doc:
trine is, that the pioneers shall hare the control
than most of u members Of Congress. laugh
ter aud appIause.l lido not seter to any PRES
cnt. Renewed Iaughtes.} believe that ltber'
# in tue hands Of the pioneer, is safer than with
the political trickstess who occasionally meet a,
: Washington to make laws. When we organ
lied this territory, il 1851 nsk some old pio.
neer, and . good many ure present in the hear
! ing Of my voicc-don't you believe That we were
better uble to determine what Institutions We
: wanted, than the men in " Tashington, who nere1
.. saw Wisconsin, aud Knew nothing Of its climate
its people, their van4s, OF their character! D.
determine whether you wanted slavery in Wis
cousin or not, I'll n for t:lo-e at Washington tc
decide it? Is it no: sl1o the method that is So
!. fest for liberty? That is The Democratic doc
! trine-the real practical Free se'' doctrine;
Twill nov speak Of the resolution in relation
to the Supreme Court We did pass resolu
tion stating that the court is entitled to respect
We say SO now. For when that court is not en-
titled 10 respect. it will be necessary for us t
| commence 1ue W0rk of rer0utiDn. hen !
. ceases 10 be entitled to the respect Of the peo
| pie, one Of the grcat pillars Of this goyernnlen
will hare gone from under it, and the work o
. our ancestors, in which we now take so mnc.
just pride, will full PROSTATE to the earth. vi
believe thst tribunal - entitled to respect Tn
! only question upon which it is even claimed !
has departed from our notions, Is upon thi
question Of a1ayery. wish to e1amine for
moment that bred Scott decision. There wa
considerable said in it, but it determined only
few questions; Cne was, that bred Scott, ate
= living in Missouri, where he was owned rs
slave, on returning to Missouri became slar
: again, md as such could not sue in his owl
name, to obtain his liberty in the Circuit Cour
Of the United States.
, The other position which hare heard some
, time5 quoted as 4 part Of decision, WAS not
u position, or even. Us often said, die:um Of .h
. Court, that Judge Tauey sata that the negrn In
!, no rights which the white mnu is bound to re
spect. There is no such thing in tile decision
; DEFY any nann to End It. judge Taney neyc
:. stated that at the time the Declaration wa
luude the neg o was not entitled to anr right
:, which the white man WAS bound to respect II
- :. did state, rs . historical fact, that his right
= condition o. the neS.o in all parts Of this couu
= try. IL crssy Territory, s.sc one. he was
= slave md hss rights were not respected IS
; man. This was. historical l:ct stated By tn
:" Court Was be not right! However, he nigh
:. have been mistaken, otherwise it is no. no,
important. But in that historical statement b
! was correct. Every student Of history Vi,
- hears me knows it.
!. [The remainder Of Mr. uobart's speech wa
u chiefly devoted TO State finences and measure
:. relating to State poticy.]