The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-11-11

fundamental principle that every people ought
to possess the right of forming and regulating
their own internal concerns and domestic insti
tutions in their own way. It was supposed
that those of our fellOw.citizens who emigrated
to the shores of the Pacific and to our other
territories were as capable of self.government
as their neighbors and kindred whom they left
behind them; and there was no reason for be-
leving that they have lost any of their intelli.
gence or patriotism by the wayside, while
crossing the Isthmus or the Plains. 1t was also
believed, that after their arrival in the country,
when they had become familiar with it's top0
graphy, climate, productions and resources,
and had connected their destiny with it, they
were fully as competent to judge for themselves
what kind of laws and institutions were best
adapted to their condition and interests, as we
were, who never saw the country, and knew
very little about it. To question their compe.
tency to do this, was to deny their capacity for
self-gOvernment. If they have the requisite in
telligence and honesty to be entrusted with the
enactment of laws for the government of white
men, know of no reason why they should not
be deemed competent to legislate for the negro.
If they are sufficiently enlightened to make
laws for the protection of life, liberty and
property-of morals and education-to deter.
mine the relation of husband and wife, of pa.
rent and child am not aware that it requires
any higher degree of civilization to regulate the
affairs of master and servant. These things
are all confded by the Constitution to each
State to decide for itself; and l know of no
reason why the same principle should not be
extended to the Territories"
This speech was laid on the desk of every
member of the Senate, at the opening of
the second session of the Thirty-frst Con-
gress, in December, 1850, when with full
knowledge of my opinions upon the territor-
ial question, was unanimously nominated
in the Democratic caucus, and reelected by
the Senate Chairman of the Committee on
Territories. From that time to this I have
spoken the same sentiments, and vindicated
the same positions in debate in the Senate
and have been reelected Chairman of the
Committee on Territories at each session of
Congress, until last December, by the unani.
nous voice of the Democratic party in
caucus, and in the Senate, with my opinions
on this territorial question qUeN knoavn to
and aven understood by every Senator. Yet
Mr.. Gwin testifes that 1 was condemned
and deposed by the Senate for the utterance
of opinions in 1858, which were put on re
cord year after year, so plainly and unequiv.
ocally, as to leave neither the Senate nor
the country in doubt. Thus does Mr.
Gwin, in his eagerness to be my public &C.
cuser, speak to his own condemnation, for
he voted for me session after session, with my
opinions, the same that spoke at Freeport
staring him in the face.
On the 4th of January, 1854, l reported
the Nebraska bill, and, as Chairman of the
Committee on Territories, accompanied it
with special report, in which stated dis
tinctly "that all questions pertaining to
Slarery an the Territories, and in the neu
States to be formed theretrom, are to be lefl
to the decision Of the people residing therein
by their appropriate representatives to be
chosen by them for that purpose" And, that
the bill proposed to carry these PROPOSE
tions and principles into practical operation
in the precise language of the Compromise
Measures of 1885," The Kansas N ebraska
Act, as it stands on the statute book, does
define the power of the Territorial Legisla.
ture in the precise language of the Com.
promise Measures of 1850" 1t gives the
Legislature power over all rightful subjects
of legislation consistent with the Constitu.
tion, acithout excepting african Slavery.
During the discussion of the measure it was
suggested that it was necessary to repeal
tie 9Th section of the act of the 9Th OF
March, 1850, called the Missouri Compro.
mise, in order to permit the people to con-
troll the slavery question, avhile then remained
in territorial condition, and before then
became a State of the Union. That was the
object and only purpose for which the
Missouri Compromise was repealed.
On the night of the Sd of March, 1854,
in my closing speech on the Kansas
Nebraska Bill, few hours before it passed
the Senate, 1 said 4: at is only for the pur.
pose of carrying out this great, fundamental
principle Of self government, that the bill
renders the 9Th section Of the Missouri act
imperative and uoid." The article of the
Washington Union, of Oct. 8, 1858, to
which have referred, quotes this and other
passages of my speech on that occasion, to
prove that the author of the Nebraska Bill
framed it with express reference in confer
ring on the Territorial Legislature power to
control the Slavery question and further,
that I boldly avowed the purpose at the
time in the presence of all the friends of the
bill, and urged its passage upon that ground.
have never understood that Mr.. Gwin, or
any other Senator who heard that speech
and voted for the bill the same night, ex-
pressed any dissent or disapprobation of the
doctrines it announced. That was the time
for dissent and disapprobation that was
the time to condemn, if there were cause to
condemn, and not four or five years after.
The record furnishes no such evidence of
dissent or disapprobation nor does the
history of those times show that the Demo-
cratic party in the North or in the South,
or in any portion of the country, repudiated
the fundamental principle upon which the
Kansas n ebraska act is founded, and pro.
scribed its advocates and defenders.
If Mr.. Gwin did not understand the Kan
sas- Nebraska bill when it was under con.
sideration, according to its plain meaning,
as explained and defended by its authors