The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1860-07-06

"J P'OtebtiuS slavery IHey nave an ap
prentice system, which expires in very shor
time.
Nr. CLINGMAN. / am obliged to the gen
tieman tor the suggestion but | consider b
fact with reference to Utah Immaterai, be
cause 1t lies on a table land several thousan,
feet above the sea, very far north, reaching ~
to the forty-second parallel, and having yer,
cold climate. Surely, the Senator does not de
NY The fact that, as far as New Mexico 10 con
ceFned, we have got everything we desire, ant
that 1t covers more territory than we elaine,
10 iS2O. was about TO say, though, that e
ven IN Kansas slave property was protected BY
the territorial Legislature tor several years, bu
lately they have legislated against it. | be-
lieve that, but for the extraordinary excitemen
which grew up out of the repeal OF the Nilsson
ri restriction, the Territory of Kansas neve
would have legislated adversely to us, but W,
all know that great crowd were sent m there
from the North, with extreme antI-slavery
views, and the result of the excitement tber,
has been legislation against US but we are nc
worse on IN that respect than if we had never
repealed the restriction, and we are much better
Oft as far as the Territory of New Mexico i,
concerned, by adopting non-in.ervention.
Mr.. CRITTENDEN. Will the gentleman
give way TO motion to adjourn.
Alr. CLlNGMAN. AS it is late, il there is nc
Objection 10 the question going over until TO-
morrow, It will be more agreeable TO me-
Mr.. CRITTENDEN. | move that the Sem
ate adjourn.
The motion was agreed to and the Senate 4d-
journed.
TUESDAY, MAY s, 1860.
yesterday alluded 10 the opin ions of Mr..
Calhoun. 1t IS perhaps right that should say,
10 the very same speech from which read, he
expressed the opinion that Territorial LeglsIa-
ture hah no right to exclude slavery, or to
leglslate against 1t. concur with him IN that.
He also, think almost uniformly, perhaps in
variably, held ihat Congress had right and
ought to protec: all property in the Territories
subject 10 It's jurisdiction !; but he waived that
right in his speech, to which referred, and in
his support OF the Clayton compromise bill,
which passed at the same session OF Congress,
and only few weeks afterwards, he again wal
we'd it. By the provisions of that bill, Con-
gress did not egislate at all in relation to sIa-
very in the Territories, but transferred the sub
ject TO the Territorial Legislature, with an in
Alihitin" that they ahnnld haua no power
to abolish or establish Slavery-those were the
terms-but saying nothing as to how far thev
might IegIslate. 1t turned over the whole sub
Ject to them, and let them to legisIate, subject,
OF course, to the control OF the courts. That
was the prominent idea of that bIll
Now, sir, one other remark IN connection
with the first point which I made. During the
discussion of 1850, insisted that il the gente-
men would come forward and repeal the
restriction, and throw open all the territority,
would agree to take it and in fact, in a
speech in the House of Representatives, a.
greed TO vote for this principle if they would
remove the restriction up 20 the fortieth paral-
lei, from SO d. 80 M considering that sufficient
compensation. 1t was not done, however. and
L opposed the scheme. But, in 1854, the
northern portion ofthe Democratic party, with
great magnanimity and with great risk to
themselves, came up and repealed this old re-
striction. In doing that they had to encoun-
ter prejudices at home they had to take upon
their shoulders the responsibility OF repeating
a line which had been regarded as sanctifed
by thIrt-tour years existence, and which was
called compromise. They bad the manli-
ness, in carrying out this principle of nou-in-
tervenion, TO come forward and repeal that |
line. Why? 1t was IN order that al! the |
territory might be placed upon the same foot
ing and hold that after that sacrifice upon
their part that willingness to carry out this
begun in 1850, indorsed in 1852,
by the Democratic and also by the Opposition
we of the South are under the high |
est obligation to stand to it. Now, sir, l make !
no reflection on any honorable Senator who |
who differs from me on this question. I do |
them all the Justice to say that, If they looked |
upon it as do, as a compromise, | arr very |
sure they would not seek TO disturb it. Ia |
king the view Of it do, believing that the two |
parties settled down upon non-lntervention, l |
feel it to be my duty to adhere to it in the ab- |
'ence OF any great pressing necessity which |
would Justify its abandonment.
MIR. President, what are the points of differ |
ence between the :wo parties The Senator |
from Mississippi, if read his resolution Alright, |
does not propose to favor intervention by Con-
yresS to protect slavery in the Territories at |
his time, but he declares if it should turn out |
hereafter that the existing laws are not sufi-
cient to protect it nnder the Constitution, he is
hen for legislation. What do those who op- |
pose his resolution say +! The Senator from
Ohio tMr. PUGH) and the Senator from Illinois
Mr.. DoUGLAs) say that if, hereafter, the courts
shall make decisions which cannot be carried |
out without legislation, they will legslate TO
carry them out. The Senator from Mississippi |
'ays that the Dred Scott decision has settled the
question, and be wants a declaration that we |
mean to legislate in future. These gentlemen,
as they must, that the judges have, in
he Dred Scott case, expressed their opinion
hat Territorial Legislature cannot legisate
adversely 10 slavery, say, however, that point
in tact was not presented in the case but that,
if such was the settled opinion of the court,
when proper case is directly presented it