Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1859-03-30
Speech of Senator Bigler
on THE QUESTION OF
Slavery in the Territories.
Delivered IN tie Senate ofhe u. s. Feb. %.
1859

Durlng the discussion Of thu Appropri.
alton bill, in the Senate of the limited
States, on the Odd ult., Senator Hale
moved, as an additional section. TO repeol
the restrictive clause of the act To admit
Kansas Upon this question Senator Bic
LER spoke as tollows
MIR. IA esdent, | shall occupy the time
OF the Senate for very few minutes and
indeed, sir, | regret the necessity of saving
anything on this occasion.
think 1t was on the 2d of July, 1856.
ABOUT D o'clock, in the morning, when the
Senator from Illinois Mr.. Trumbullj pro-
posed an amendment to what was known
as the loomb's BILL in which this question
OF the power Of a Territorial Legislature
over the subject Of slavery was raised, and
lor the hrSt time presented to my mind
ior practical consideration. His amend
ment was intended to define the view of
Congress on this subject.
ON that occasion expressed the opin-
ion that, by the Kansas and Nebraska
policy, the whole question of slavery in
the Territories had been referred to the
people, and that they, through a proper
law. making power, could control the sub
iect: but at the same time, | held. as |
believe it had been almost universally held
by the friends of the Kansas policy, that
the question was a judicial one: that it
was not one for Congressional decision :
that it must be decided by the Supreme
Court Of the United States, and not by
Congress; that Congress had conferred
upon the people whatever power it posses
sed over the subject under the constilu-
ton; that as to the language of tho Kan
sas Nebraska act, there uld be no differ
ence Of opinion; it was explicit; and the
only question left for decision was, what
measure Of power does Congress possess ?
That question was necessarily a judicial
one; and that was the very question. to-
gether with that of the rights of slave
owners in the Territories, which it had
been agreed should be taken from Con-
gress and referred to the Court
was among those who held the opin-
ion that the people of Territory, through
their local Legislature, under the language
Of the Kansas law, had the power, if not
the right, to control the question of sla-
very ] say porcr if not the right because
there is clear distinction between the
right and power of people. They may
have the power to do That which it is not
their right to do; and in this connection
that distinction becomes important: for
take it, the question under discussion is
more one of legal right, than one of the
power of majority, or the power of a
people
There is certainly a very clear distinc-
ton between Intervention by Congress to
or abolish slavery IN a Territory,
or, if you please, to influence in any way,
the question Of its expediency, and the
exercise of the power Of Congress to exc
cute right established by a decree of a
court. am against all Congressional in
tcrierence TO encourage slavery, or to eX-
tend or to restrict. or to maintain the in
against the will of the people of
a Territory We have agreed to leave all
questions that may arise as to the institu,
ton in the Territories, to the people and
the courts.
If the rights of any citizen be seriously
impaired, his remedy is the courts, and
not in Congress but question may arise
behind all these, and that is the question
)l executing an established right There
may be II case in which whatever power
remains to Congress should be exercised
10 maintain the rights of the citizen rs as
certained by the Courts it cannot be de,
MED that the Senator from Illinois. Mr..
Douglas at one time, entertained the
opinion that such an occasion might arise
for he held and said that, in reference TO
Utah, such an eXigency had arisen, and
hat the law organizing the Territory ought
% be repealed and thereby he claimed
or Congress the highest degree of power
,ver pretended TO by Congress and this
or the reason that the Mormons would
not obey the law or the decisions of the
Jourts. 4 similar state of facts in any
other Territory might warrant q similar
remedy. Should the Legislature of Kan,
ias contiscate the property value of the
slaves now in the Territory. and the Courts
should decide such an act unconstitutional
yould the execution of the decision of the
Court be called Congressional intervention
or slavery? Certainly not. claim to
stand on the Democratic platform, as def
ned at Baltimore and Cincinnati. on the
broad doctrine of nonintervention bv Con-
yress in the matter OF slavery but | cam
wv NloSt my eyes W illc uSlluCllOn Dc-
ween the action of Congress to encour-
lge n policy, and the maintenance of the
lights Of the citizen, as defed by the Su-
oreme Court. And this point more than
my other, has batiled my judgments and
ny mind was to-day dwelling upon the
'ery inquiry presented by the Senator
orm Alabama, Mr.. Clay, TO wit if the
'itizen of slaveholding State has right
Is decided by the Supreme Court, to take
lis slave into Territory and possess him
here during the Territorial existence
whence comes that right, and how can its
be destroyed by community
lot possessed of sovereign power? Nor
AN understand what is intended by claim.
ng for the local Legislature the legal
means to destroy constitutional right.
Mr.. Pugh.-Allow me to ask the Senay
or y question,
Mr.. Bigler.--In few moments if the |
senator pleases. What is a right that can
lot be enjoyed, but delusion and fraud ?
The Supreme Court has held that the
light TO repossess a fugitive slave is in the
'wner; but what is that right worth, un-
ess the means Of executing it be furnish
d 10y Congress Aud what is the right