Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1860-03-08

i u
cd gentleman from the State of Virginia, whose
name is synonymous with purity Of character and
elevated stlteSmlnship, was his Attorney General ;
and John Quincy Adams "the old m,n eloquent"
was his Secretary OF State.
By this Compromise, the controversy was settled,
and remained a closed question until 1881, when,
by the acquisition Of Mexican Territory, growing
out ofthe Mexican war, the slavery issue was again
opened, and whit were called the Compromise
Measures of 1859 were passed. We arc told now,
that after those measures passed. that the Missouri
| Compromise was certainly unconstitutional, and
should be broken down. Clay interrogated by
Mr.. Cooper, of PennSy if there was anything
inconsistent with the Missouri Compromise in his
measures of S50 and he said that no snch thing
had entered into his heart to conceive. More than
that, the Missouri Compromise was expressly re-
| affirmed in of the Compromise measures OF
1850. But, YOU told, that they did not pretend
to enact the Wilmot ProviSo. What is the truth
about tn 1T In reference to that matter Mr. Clay
introduced series of resolutions out of which the
Compromise measures grew. The second was to
the effect that inasmuch slavery, or involuntary
servitude, did not exist in the Mexican Territory,
therefore 1t was unnecessary to extent the Wllmot
Proviso to those Terrt tories. The inference is r-
resstible, tn 1t If it had existed there, he would
have proposed its exclusion. HIS position WAS the
snme as M Webster's--that as slavery was not
there unlcr the law of Mexico, it could not exist
that it was unnecessary to say anything about it,
On that b isis the Compromise measures passed.
One of those Compromise measures was to give
Texas ten millions of dollars for her claim, to a
country which she hal no earthly or heavenly title
to; and one osthe provisions of thatb was to ex-
c.ulc slavery from the territory acquired. Is il
not strange then that we told that the Com?ro-
mise oflS2) was Inconsistent with this later Com
promise, when We inl it re-enacted in this very
bill.
In 1852, in an evil hour for the honor AMI glory
OF this country, the Democratic party met Ak Ba!ti
more, and nominated one Mr.. Piercc--Gen Pierce
equally distinguished civilian and a sol
dier. The convention resolved that it would dis
courage all agitation upon the subject OF Slavery IN
orou Of Congress. The Wing party then met
and, gentlemen, permit me here to say one thing:
was proud of that old party. am not here to resur
rect it, but, if necessary to shed tears over it, II
WAS the parcst organic ition since the days OF the
Revolution. applause. The Wing party, in
their convention at Blltimore, resolved upon the
| same tling--that they would discountenance the
agitation OF the subject of Slavery.
Two years rolled rGunl, n1Stcphcn a. Douglas
introduced into Congress the measure that began
the agitation, by doing that which no nun of the
South or North had asked for-by doing that which
he had said bat 4 few short m)ntls before he
hoped no ruthless hanl would ever do. He brought
in measure to repeal .he Missouri Compromise
For what purpose was this. To inaugurlte new
system, he told US, by which the people in the Ter
ritories could form and regulate their own nStitu
tons in their own way.
For few moments, let Us see what TINT stump
speech, injected into the body of that bill,
What the positions of the three parties now up
on the suJ,ect of s'ave.y / III Territories? The
Opposition believes that Congress lls that power
which exertcd under the administration OF
Washington and every subsequent President. as
have shown you-a pow er which has the sanction of
seventy yelrs' uninterrupted experience Thot is
what we believe. Whvl Net simply bee iuse
the G vcrnnlcns has acluesced in this practice iol
seventy years. bat the ground tha. there is an
press gran, in TIE Constitution, u Congress, o. this
authority,
The Constitution provides that ''the Consress
shall have power dispose and Ike all necd.ul
rules AID regulations respecting the territory or
other property belonging to the Unite st ltes''
Under that authority it was the opinion of Clay
AMI Webster, and the great constitutional lawyers
OF the past age that the power govern the Terri
tories necessarily resulted. The power govern
the Territories results incv taby from another pro-
vision. Congress representing the sovereignty oi
the country, the nationality of the Republic is only
known THROUGH the action o. CJn1reSs, the suprcm
power; the right to acquire territory is nowhere
else. and ifthey have right to acquire territory
it is perfectly absurl to say that they may not act
for It's government.
The opinion of the d niocratic party as repre-
scntcd by James Buchanan is that the Constitution
of the U. s. CARES slavery into all the Territorie:
of the U. S. without local law. and he says in his
late Message that neither the Congress of the IT, S
nor the supreme Court, nor Territorial legisla
ture, nor any humm power can exclude slavery
from Territory. There is the opinion OF James
Buchanan.
The position OF Douglas, as understand it, is
that ,iority OF the people cannot exclude it, bu,
they can mike the place so hot by rnfriendly legis
laton, that Slavery cannot stay there.
Now how does it happen that popular sovereign
" does or can attach to the people of a Territory
when the people cannot OF ganize Territorial lie
gslatnre without an act of Congress; We are
told that California did Not so fast, gentlemen
California never went through the process Of Ter
ritorsl organz ,tion. she cannot be quoted in ia
J vor of popular sovereignty.
Let u compare the opinions of the two fragments
of the Democratic party on this subject. Buchan
stys that slavery is aready in the Territories
Douglas says in his Harper article that it never
exist there without local law to protect it. Yet
gentlemen tell US Democracy is the same thing ev
cry where. Well, it has something every where
Ii is rather )an institution every where. Loud
: applause and much laushter:l That is the only
identity thas. Applause. Douglas and all hi:
: friends, here and everywhere, | suppose, resist
what is callea slave code for the Territories, and
the people Of the South insist npon it. These lat
ter saw that the Constitution bv its force car
ries Slavery into the Territories, whether the peo
pie want it or not, and that it is the duty of Con
grcss to protect it. Ifthe one position is true the
other is equally II the Constitution docs carry
Slavery into the Territories, the people of the
South are right. The fallacy of the argument con
siss in the ftct that the Constitution does not car
ry "the peculiar institution any where, but doe:
protect it where it exists by virtue Of local law.
JOHN
But something has been said of certain Johr
. Brown, who figured rather conspcuously at Har
per's Ferry. In reference to his unfortunate at
tack upon Harpcrs Ferry and on the people ofVir
gna, have but few words to describe my opinion
Those words "murder and treason" He was
felon, and very properly met felon's DOOM
Long continued applause and cheers for "Lane."
There is my opinion upon the subject of JOIN
Brown. do not feel in any way responsible fol
bis act have taught doctrine which led to any
such result. The Republican party has taught nc
such doctrine. Il is, perhaps, safe for the Demo
cratic party to say that the Republican party did so
but it is safe for any member of that party
5 say that any individual did so If such charge il
: preferred against me, have an answer in goot
I Anglo-Saxon dialect ready: sit is falsc.''
FEARFUL RESPONSIBILITY OF DOUGLAS.
For seventy years the Territories were settle;
peacefully, but IN 1854. when Douglas introduced
the bill TO repeal the Missouri Compromise, an,
from that moment civil war. strife and contention
ragged upon the plains of Kansas, and every drop o
blood that the soil Of Kansas drank in, redden
upon the skirts of Douglas. There is holy retri
hutton that will follow him. tn rcward him for ti,a