Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-03-23
G3e Stanbarb.
ALEIGH: SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1859.
HOLDEN & WILSON, STATE PRINTERS,
ruoRzEp PUBLISHERS OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
Popular Sovereignty.--Kansas-N Act.

PUBLISHERS OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATE
Popular Soyereisnty.--Kansas-N Nebraska Act.
In the recent debate in the Senate of the United
tatcs ON popular sovereignty and the kansas-Ne-
raska act it was insisted by Mr.. Brown, of Missis-
ppi, who opened the debate, that the 'naked Con-
[t,tion" of the United States does not afford that
(leouate protection which the nature and descrip-
on" of slave property in the Territories requires;
|at the Supreme Court having decided that we
kye the right to carry our slaves into the Terrific
Is and necessarily to have them protected after
Ii them there they virtually decided that we have
RIGHT to call upon somebody to give lis that pro-
ction and to make it adequate, to suit the nature,
aracter, and description of the property to be pro-
ctcd." lie insisted that if a Territorial Legisla
re should by action of an unfriendly character to-
ards the institution of slavery, or by non-acton,
miously affect the rights of shareholders, it would
the duty of Congress to interfere, and, by some
ccia act, protect the STAKEHOLDER.
Nr. Davis, of Mississippi, took substantially the
me ground He declared that Congress is 'bound
seq that the right to carry slaves into the COM
pa Territories, and to hold them there, is "tully
oyed."
Mr. Mason, of Virginia, took substantially the
nc view, insisting that Congress can grant no
bwer which it does not itself possess to the Ter
(orics but he admitted that the kansas-Nebraska
was framed upon the principle "of leaving this
eStion Of slavery in the Territories to the judcia
!" He referred also in the course of his remarks
the Clayton compromise of 1S4s, which had the
notion among others of Mr.. Calhoun, and which
opposed to leave the question of slavery in the Ter
cries to the Supreme Court. Mr.. Mason also de-
red that he had found himself mistaken in the
PC that the Kansas Nebraska act would settle the
turbing question of slavery; and he repudiated
strong terms the doctrine that Territorial Leg
hture had right, either by nonaction or by Of
sve action, to exclude slavery from Territory.
did not however, in so many words declare that
ngress was bound in any event to interfere to
btect slavery in the Territories.
Mr.. Green, of Missouri contended that the Terri
fal Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska have nc
Int, directly or indirectly, to exclude slavery and
It slaves being property under the Constitution
so decided by the Supreme Court if these Leg
tures, by action OF non-action, should attempt tt
klude or to injurc the institution, land thereby
troy the rights of citizens, it would be the duty
,ongr, SIS to intervene"
I the course of the debate, and in reply to Mr.
\ bwn, Mr.. Douglas said
Let the Territorial Legislatures pass just sucf
IN regard to slavery as they think they have ;
!, lt to enact under the Constitution of the United
: tcs If do not like those laws, / will not vot'
repeal them; if you do not like them, you mus
D. vote to repeal them; hut anybody aggrievet
appeal to the Supreme Court, and if they ar
stitutional, they mdst stand; if they are uncon
u,ional they are void That was the doctrine O
y intervention, as it was understood at the tim
Kansas Nebraska bill was passed. That is tn
}. it was explained and argued in the Senate an
the House of Representatives and before tn
ntry. 1t was distinctly understood that Con
IS was never to intervene for or against slavery,
other institution in the Territories; butlcave tn
rts to decide all constitutional questions as the,
OBJ int arise and the President to carry the DEGREES
court into effect; and, in of resistance to hi
hority in executing the judicial process let bin
if necessary, the whole military force OF tn
, nry as provided by existing laws"
(: ir. Pugh, Democrat, of Ohio, occupied the sam
= und with Mr. Douglas, and said in reply to MI
's, 81 will vote for no code, no act of Congress
interfere with the local legislation of the Terrific
,s excluding or admitting slavery-nonc."
must be borne in mind, in considering this sui
p that the leading object of the South, from 1874
VII $50, when the so-called compromise measures
~ passed, was to prevent Congress from applyin
Wilmot Proviso to regions south of the Missoul
pr and thus monopolzing all the common Terr
, es. In 1850 it was provided that Utah and Ne
Iico should be admitted "with or without slav
as their Constitutions should prescribe; and
,oa the Kansas Nebraska act was passed. whc
uPs fessly abrogated the Missouri restriction.
declared in that act that its true intent an
ming was "not to legislatc slavery into any Stat
~ ~ erritory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but t
! y the people thereof perfectly free to form an
Il late their domestic institutions in their ow
subject only to the Constitution Of the Unite
w es" 1t was also provided that an appeal migt
aken by any STAKEHOLDER from the Courts of tn
ltory to the Supreme Court of the United State
. y the title to slave property; and in addition
ug'tive-slave act was extended in its full fore
css pe Territories of Nebraska and Kansas. Th
.J body Of the Northern people opposed th
,els sure, and the great body of the Southern peop
s 81 Cd it. Mr.. Douglas, the author of the bill
'enounced by the abolitionists and burnt in e
n,u nn or his bold and able advocacy of it; and it
ib' no ordinary efforts to bring the entire Demt
rEL party of the free States to its support Th
IA gained by it.