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

set-government, TO what other. sufficiently strong
% uphold them in public opinion, can they appeal
greatly mistake the character of the people OF thi;
Union, II such appeal would not prove successf
if either party should have the ma gnimlty to steJ
forward and boldly make it. 1t would in my O.
pnlon, be received with sh outs of appreciation by
the patriotic and intelligent in every quarter
There Is deep feeling pervading the country tina
the Mon and our political institutions are in dan
ger, which such course would dIspel. ."-ABpendi7
to Congressional Gkote, ffst session Thrtieth Con
gress, p. S92.
That position was taken by him and others
and main ntaIned, and gradually obtained strength
until, IN 1880, it received majority of the
votes of the southern members and of the Dem.
ocrat:c party, and became part of the public
law OF the country. hold, sir, that this wa,
emphatlcally compromise between The sec.
tlonS ; and propose now to give several rea.
sons why am for maintaining it, although al
the time 1t was adopted | was opposed to it.
place this view in the foreground; northern gen.
tlemen. be it recollected, insisted on the Wilmo
provso, to prohibit slavery in the Territories
and we OF the South claimed protection. When
the WlImot proviso was brought up, there were
only seven or eight Democrats in the House oi
Representatives who resisted it. Among then
| recolect the Senator from Illinois Mr.. DoU-
GLAs) and his colleague at that time, who !,
now member of the other House, aud who was
voted for at an early day OF the session for Spea-
/ ker, (Mr. MCCLERNAND.) Excepting those
gentleman, believe, there is no one else now
in the public councils from the North who OPP
! posed 1t. Many men of the North said, ''Ii
we are ID legislate, 10 fix the status of the Ter
ritores, as we represent free communities, we
will carry out their views but it you think
proper TO turn over the whole question 10 the
people, under the Constitution, we will Join you
in that, and vote down the Wilmot proviso."
That was subsequently, accomplished and in
1852, when the national conventions adopted
it, it became the settled policy of the country
and those IN the South who had opposed it, ac-
quiesced and adopted it.
Now Mr.. President, the Senator from Mssis-
sIppi argues that the policy of non-intervention
did not mean to deny the right to protect that
it merely pledged Congress not to establish or
to prohibit slavery, but did not deny protection
to 1t. | might, by adVerting to the discussions
OF that day, show that a different construction
was then put upon it by gentlemen generally ;
but have some authority here which binds the
whole party to which that Senator and myself
bsloug, and which, | think, ough: to be concu-
sive-I mean the last clause of the thirty-sec-
Qua section OF the KanSas-Neoraska bill, which
the Administration of that day, of winch he
was a member, made all Administration mea-
sure, and which received the support Of the
Democratic members OF the two houses and
ask the particular attention of the Senate to the
language:
E'That the Constitution, and all the laws of the
United States which not locally InappIicable,
have al ia
Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United
States, except the eighth section of the act prepar-
atory TO the admission of Missouri into the Union
approved March the 7th, 1920, which, being ncou-
lstent with the principle Of non-inteTvention by
Congress with slavery in the States and Territories
as recognized bY the legislation of 1850, commonly
called the compromise measures, hereby dec Jared
imperative and void it being the true intent and
meaning OF this act not 10 legisate slavery into
any Territory State, to exclude it thererom,
bat TO leave the people thereof perfectly free to
form and regulate their domestic institutions in
their own way, subject only to the Constitution of
the United States.'
The Missouri line was repealed and why
Because it was unconstitutional or wrong in IL
self? No, sir but because it was "inconsis-
tent with the principle of non-intervention by
Congress with slavery in the States and Terri
tories"
| admit, If The act had stopped there, there
might have been some plausiblhty in the argu-
ment, but what is the conclusion
"PRovIDFD, That nothing herein contained shall
be construed to revive put in force any law or
regulation which may have existed prior to the act
of 9th March, 1920, either protecting, establishing,
prohibiting, or abolish ing slavery
That is, Congress would not only not inter-
fere itself; would not only not allow its own
statutes to stand IN the way, but would not re-
vive any old law which might have been in
force by which slavery was protected in that
Territory. Is i. not perfectly clear that the
whole purpose OF the act, and of the party at
that day, was to free Congress from all Iegisla-
ton over the subject of slavery in the Terrific
ries, whether by way of protection, or estab
lishment, or prohibition, and leave the Terrific
~ free to act, as the Constitution permitted it
remember well how that clause came to be
inserted IN the bill. During the discussion, it
was said, by gentlemen who opposed the bill,
that if Congress simply repealed the restriction,
the result would be that the old louisiana law,
establishing and protecting slavery, would be
revived. To meet that argument this clause
was introduced, became a part Of the bill, and
received the support of every friend of the bill
who voted for it in both Houses of Congress.
| submit, therefore, that, upon fair construc-
ton ofthat act, you can come 10 no other con-
ciusion except that Congress intended to abne-
gate the exercise of any power over this ques-
ton in the Territories, and to deny its purpose
to legslate, whether TO establish or prohibit, or
to restrict or protect slavery IN the Territories;
and in 1856, in our platform, we expressly de-
clared the doctrine of ''non-i Intervention with
slavery 10 State or Territory, and IN the Dis
trict OF Columbia" Where did that leave it ?
Congress left it, of course, IN the States, TO the
States in the Territories there being no law
of Congress left, for that repeal removed the
last act of Congress which bore upon them-it