Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1860-08-08
b 9aip spp aoreer: arOnesOap gnmg, august $780,

after our republican fathers had abolished slavery
ritories-thereby implying eeogniton OF that rlght
present constitutional IS our duty TO maintain mat
person shall be de rived of life, liberty property,
without Que process of law IL is now said that that
doesn't mean that congress shall intervene in the terri
tories. What does it mean, then? 1t SAYS they must
maintain that provision Of the constitution and by leg
lsailon This resolution declares that neither congress
nor the territorial legislature egaze slavery in the
territories Therefore, congress undertakes TO do it, it
have before me the bill introduced by Mr. Bingham,
OF the JUDICIARY committee in relation to slavery IL Sew
Mexico The territorial legislature OF New Mexico nave
rec0tnzed the existence ofsavery in that territory ana
passed code of laws, maintaining protecting ana reg-
latng H. ms code OF laws not only namtuhs ana IHs
ulates negro slavery i'm that territory but 1t also contains
ing the territory of New Mexico provides that all the
laws enacted therein shall be submitted 10 congress for
Bingham for the repeal OF territorial laws on the
slavery subject but it was TO declare them nun ana VOID
The question before the house Of representatives. was
that was cnacted~sbouid he declared null and void
1t is said that the republican platform declares such
laws TO be unconstitutional and we are asked whether
can by an act ofcongres make them uncOnstltu
tional: or whether make that any more nudity
which already nullity The platform nothing The
questions whether having adopted your platform I0n
will carry out its doctrines in the administration OF the
government. Congress was called upon 10 declare an
act null and void. Why? Because me aet was uneon-
stitutional Take the Illustration used the other evening
You were asked what you W9u i lS t, ~ cg IoMn
OF Orange should pass system o laws ioi u %
wealth of Massachusetts, If Governor Banks should call
everybody know that that would furnish occasion
for calling the legislature together? But If the town
carry out those laws in subverson of the laws Of the
commonwealth it would be an occasion for the nerven
ton of the governor commandern-chief ur the
ton of the courts Nobody would be stupid as TO call
legislature together repeal the laws Of the town Of
Besides Orange does not hold the relation
to the state of Massachusetts which the territory
Of New Mexico holds to the United States
The territory OF New Mexico organized with right
pass They have therefore right to pass all laws
necessary domestic purposes, but not in violation Of
the constitution. will put directly in point. By
a law OF the commonwealth OF Massachusetts, every
has right to pass bylaws for its own regulations
Those bylaws if approved by ne superior court OF the
county, ar" in force suppose then the town oi orange
should pass bylaw and he superior court of the
v OF Franklin should approve it, and then some enc
should declare 1t it is
constitutional the approval OF the court does not make
and ask that it might be annued. Suppose, further,
that of our own representatives,, an intelligent
mechanic who represents the city of Worcester in the
legislature, should when the question comes up
annung that by-aw-the law is unconstitutional, and
you make it any than it is? appeal to my
friend Mr. Knox, who represents us in the legislature,
would yOu, would you not declare that law nulty
Would you turn round and say The party aggrieved
by IT, the law is unconstitutional Il is null ami void
and why do you wish say so? Would younot rather
be dscharging your duty legislator by declaring it
null and void because it is unconstitutional. cloud
Let me put you a case. Suppose that same town OF
Orange should undertake to establish slavery by by
law and thereby one Of its negroes should be ensaved
and then suppose the party ageved should go to Boston
and ask the legislature to annul the law. Would You
turn round and tell him the law is unconstitutional it is
null and void. and we cannot make it more so Would
you leave him still in bondage? No; you would relieve
him by declaring the law null and void That is precisely
the case in New Mexico to-day And if congress had
have been swept away from the statute-book OF New
Mexico, and those poor men and women who, while
jOyng the blessings of freedom instead Of suffering all
the horrors of slavery because congress would wipe
Now say the who stands in the place of power to
abrogate sucn law and says will not do it because
is unconstitutional but leaves the poor victims Of this
great outrage to appeal to the supreme court Of the
United States and after years Of toll and expensive m
CATION to his freedom, does not act the part OF
wise and humane legislator. No gentlemen, ii the
duty of every member of congress to say at once we
the power, and VIII that statute
from the book (tireat applausc.) 1t is TO
say the president would veto it. should like to Know
if has come to this that the people and the peoples rep
resentatyes must stand by and ask the representatives
of states in the senate will pass this bill if will
before they decide how No. the represent
alive of the people should pass the laws, force them
the senate, and leave the senate TO take the
sponsibity of defeating them il they will applause
do not believe the representatives in congress
stop ask the senate whether they will pass an appro-
Gauphter) And if they will not stop for that if they
have manhood enough for that, they ought to have
hood enough to stand up those which are
necessary to protect the poor and oppressed The
who will not do it does not represent Great APP
plauseD
sail that we should interfere with these terri
tories see have an advocate of Mr. Douglas before
anything disrespectfu Of Mr.. Douglas, who advocates
ms doctrine and you Will allow me to say, in passing it
that they have at length paper published in this city,
courtesy which ought always characterize the inter
course between gentlemen. however earnest they may
be- in the advocacy their peculiar sentiments ann
daily reader of the paperand glad bear this
NY Itsaid very good thing this morning. that being in
favor OF nonntervention it would not interfere with
matters belonging TO the republican party Ii Mr. John
II ckman hud been consistent he would not have in
right of seii-goveument Is there a school boy ten
years old, who doesn't know that doctrine be ,
who does not know that the government derives all its
Just powers from the consent of the gOveedY That is
popular sovereignty in its broadest sense and il is Moth
ns new are Wiling that the people of the terrific
ies should govern themselves if they do not violate the
constitution the United States Does any gentleman
and that have not popular sovereignty here Noman
hundred things in respect legislation The cOnstt-
Of the United that the legislature Of no state
pass certain laws without the consent of congress+
We can enter into no foreign alliance; declare
war; can keep no ships OF war in time of peace; can
limited in hundred respects; and yet have self
a law which is clearly unconstitutional and con-
sres should annul that law, is that Intervention
Of the right of sefgovenment in Massachusetts?
OF at aEwhy? Because have adopted the consti-
tuition OF the nited States and agreed 10 that rul9
action. We have also agreed that the constitution of
Massachusetts shall be binding upon that more
an interference with our present right of
yention of the right Of those who affected byit
should like to know one thousaldmen from Massachu
there should pass laws establishing slavery and congress
should anul those laws because they uncOnsttu-
tiona whether that would be an interference with the
rights of The people, or contrary the doctrine of popu
the case OF state Certainly not-none whatever.
say that when this question presented to
OF every man in that house to vote in favo
Of amulng the New Mexican laws establishing slavery;
it, D. they hesitate because they knew the president
would veto that bencicent law, the homestead bill, to
pass il? No, gentlemen that passed through the house
Of representatives in its proper form. II wa modified in
the senate and passed. and vetoed by the president
1t is poor excuse to will not pass law because
II will be defeated by "A pro-slavery senate.
pass the consideration of the laws in relation
to poly galnythose laws against all decency against all
morality, and against the Christianity of the age
son, chairman of the committee whom the matter
was referred made report setting forth the character Of
amui them; Every republican in congress voted to
anui these laws, Think except the member from this
from every section of the country and OF ali parties
by vote Of all parties, that congress has the right
intervene and anu law of territory which is nyola-
that point? ii the biII Was nasse inn law IL
could have been enforced for ii provided that il
be SUBJECTED to the penalties therefore the law could he
dozen wives at once for then you could not tell which
he married first. Did you ever hear such an absurd
statement? The language of that bill almost word for
word tn, same the language in statute book
Our law says that II man having former wife shall
marry another while the first lives he shall be deemed
guilty of polysamy, But, according to the argument,
one who wishes to evade the law go to parson
orjustice, and marry six "A dozen at once and you
can't convict him. because, having got them all at once,
he did not have any former wife. (Laughter)
Now advise you because have had little practice
ON this subject, not to adopt that mode reasoning for
so long as am district attorney shall convctevery
who acts upon that principle before Worcester jury,
no matter how many wives he may have But that
Of the reasons given by the gentleman for voting against
the bill to annul the laws upon the subject of poygamy
ed By act of the territorial legislature dvorcng all
the wives they now have in that territory, and them by
marrying them all over ain. The whole argument is
so utterly absurd that it does o deserve further notice
(Applause.)
The gentleman says again, nothing further was
proposed to be done; that in Utah you would have
to try your case before jury of pOlygamisis You
might well you will pass law iurbuding the
sale Of Intoxicating liquor because you get jury
in the city OF Boston to convict. DO YOU repeal law
because jury will not cOnvctl No. You hold up the
law 10 the people till you get jury who will convict
But that is not the only answer. Mr. Hooper, the
ni
mn this subject that not more than half the
men in Utah are polygamists, Upon the princi-
pie of law (which Is wen understood everywhere,
that the person who is guilty of the same crime
with which another person is charged, Is dis