The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1860-03-22

. at this time consisting of twenty five repre-
sentatives and thirteen councillors. Ever,
g representative and eight of the thirteen coun
), cilors may vote for bill to abolish slavery
r and yet five members of the council, united
: with the Governor whom you appoint, defeat
F.; the bill and this is what you call allowing
= the people of Kansas to do just as they
0 please. Ifthis be freedom, will nybody tell
, me what is despotism? If this be allowing
a people to do as they please, will anybody
, tell me what it is to deny them this right?
: Ny colleague admitted that the comprmise
: measures Of 1850 were passed by members
, both of the then existing parties that in
, 1852 both endorsed those measures, and de-
, nounced as heritic and traitor to the inter-
ests OF the country, any man who, in Con-
gress or out of Congress, should again stir up
, the slavery question. 1t was stirred up.--
, Does any body know who did it =? What
, Republican was it that introduced, in 1854,
the measure which brought the slavery ques-
ton again into Congress Was it the gem
tleman from New York I? The records do
not read that way but my colleague intro
duced certain bill, known as the Nebraska
blu and when he introduced it what did he
say in his written report? That inasmuch as,
in the settlement of the compromise measures
\ of 1859, Congress did not think proper to
repeal or affirm the Mexican laws by which
slavery was abolished in the territories ac-
: qurcd from Mexico during the war, therefore
the Committee on Territories were not pre-
pared on that occasion to recommend a de-
parture from the policy adopted in 1850, by
recommending either an affirmance or repeal
of the Missouri Compromise. When the bill
was introduced, in 1854, to organize Nebras-
; l1a, it was departure from the policy of
1850 to repeal the Missouri Compromise :;
and yet in thirty days the bill was amended
so as to declare that the Missouri Compromise
was inconsistent with the measures of 1850.
Now, sir. shall not accuse anybody of
stating that which is not true but | ask,
when was the truth told +? Fit was true that
in January, 1854, that to repeal the Missouri
Compromise would be departure from the
1854, that the Compromise Of 1850 was in
, consistent with that of 1920? Both propo-
I sitionS cannot stand together and array
, the chairman the Committee on Territoies,
who made this statement in his official report,
, against the same gentleman who, few days
afterwards stated and voted that the meas
ures of18jO were inconsistent with the com
promise of 1920, and there leave it.
Then sir, the question is asked here, with
f a recklesSness at which am astonishcd, why
doyou not crTy out your plan of excluding
slavery from the Territories ? My colleague
understands that it is IA part Of the Rcpubli-
, can platform that slavery is to be excluded
from the Territories of the United States,
and he wants to know why we do not bring
forward a bill for that purpose. 1t has been
bro0ght forward in this body since | have
been member oft. On the yeas and nays
E voted to keep slavery out OF Kansas, and
he voted against the proposition. Time and
again have we tried it. / should be very
, glad to have his cooperation in passing such
Il bill now ; and perhaps, since he has found
out that the Popular Sovereignty about which
he has talked is deluSion, he may unite
with rs to keep slavery out of the Terrific
| ries by the action of Congress, which has
the only legitimate authority over the subject
in the Territories
Sir, there is another statement that can
not permit to go unchallenged, and which [
. am aStonished to hear made in this body. II
relates to the State of Illinois. | had seen
the statement before in some of the newspa-
pers 4; but believe [ was never present when
such a statement was made, until to day
My colleague says ave tried slavery in
. Illinois while it was a Territory y and have
seen it stated somewhere, in connection with
this remark, that, as soon as the people o.
, Illinois were permitted to manage their own
, affairs, they excluded slavery. Now, sir,
state to the Senate, and 70 the country, that
6 slavery never existed in Illinois, by virtue o
any law, either before or after she was State
Men may be seized and imprisoned in def
ance of law. There was an attempt to in
denture servants in the State of Illinois. un
der the old Territorial laws, and when W,
i. formed State CONSTITUTIONAL | wish my
. colleague to hear it--so far from the statement
: being true that the State Of illinois had sla
very while a Territory, and abolished it whcr
she formed State Constitution, she gave
, by her State Constitution, the only validity
4 to these indentureships they ever had. Th'
Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, tht
very first time this question of the freedom
of the negroes in that State was brought be
:, fore it, in the case of Phoebe VS. Jay, decidet
by Judge Lockwood, decided expressly that
!, under the ordinance Of 1887, all attempts t
: hold negroes in slavery, or to hold them a
;. ndentured servants, were Illegal 1t wa
never as 81 ives that they were attempted t,
be held it was by a species of ofindentureship
the negroes gong voluntarily before som
. clerk or court, and there entering into article
g of agreement with some party to serve hin
v for period of years, oltentimes extending
e beyond the ordinary period of human life
e but when the question came before the courts
g after the State Constitution was adopted
n the Supreme Courts of the State decided tina
i, thoSp ip1antIirac ynra yn;I nnlar tho orJ