The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-05-25
. III 0OWIO ON N1JfJtJ 4AAI1 w 3i1A
THE WEEKLY PIONEER AND DEMOCRAT

the time the bill passed, nor with any man
who has changed bis opinions since and will
avow the change but assert that, beyond
cavil, beyond dispute, beyond pretext, the
object was, as avowed in the bill ITSELF
non.intervention by Congress with slavery
in the States and Territories and cannot
permit it to be said, without reply, that
non-intervention meant only that Congress
should not establish or prohibit slavery, and
did not mean that it should not protect it..
Sir, the record shows that it did mean that
Congress should never interfere for any pur
pose, either to protect, prohibit, or abolish.
That very question was raised by Sen.
ator from Michigan. (Mr. Stuart) while the
bill was pending, after this proposition
which l have read had been voted in. He
said that while we had stated the principle
correctly, still the effect of the bill would be-,
by repeating the Missouri compromise, to
revive the old French laws protecting slav-
cry, and that thus we should have interviewed
in the very act of mountaineering, by re.
viving law for the protection of slavery.
That was his opinion. Mr.. Stuart laid
down the proposition as lawyer that to
repeal a repeating act revived the former
act and hence, when we repealed the Mis-
souri, compromise we revived the French
law that had become void when that COM
promise was established. That eminent
lawyer and jurist, Mr.. Badger, of North
Carolina, replied that Mr.. Stuart had pros
perly stated the common law rule on that
subject; but that the civil law rule was
different, that wherever the civil law ex-
listed, if you repealed repeating act, it did
not revive the former act, and hence that no
amendment was necessary on that point.
After consultation, an amendment was pre-.
pared, which is known to the country as the
Badger amendment, the object of which was
to declare that Congress should not protect
slavery itself, nor do any act by which it
should be protected, contrary to the will of
the people that Congress would not only
not protect it, but would not do anything
that would cause revival of any law that
would protect it, the object being to leave
the Territories white sheet of paper, with
nothing but the Constitution upon it, and
to say to the people, "Go and write on it
what you please; slavery, if you want it;
and no slavery, if you do not want it," 1t
was to be, in the classic language of the
champions of the measure of that day,
clean tab,la rasa. The way we understood
it, the way tine people understood it, was
the way it reads now. Let me call your
attention to the Badger amendment, to
show that that provso was put in for the
express purpose of declaring that Congress
would not even permit any old law which
would protect slavery to be revived. That
amendment first was in the very language
that it should not revive any law which
would protect or establish slavery. 1t was
modified so as to read in these words:
Provided, That nothing herein contained
shall be construed to revive or put in force any
law or regulation which may have existed
prior to the act of the 9th of March, 1920,
either protecting, establishing, or abolishing
slavery.
That is to say, Congress will do neither;
each is inconsistent with non Intervention.
These propositions were all in the bill. l
we'll remember the history of the Badger
amendment. When found it necessary to
put it in, to satisfy the scruples of some men
as to whether the repeal of the Missouri re-
strlction would not revive the old French
law, |, as chairman of the committee, having
charge of the bill, went to every Senator in
the body friendly to the measure, who was
then present, to know whether it was salts.
factory, and that too, after the debate; and
every single Senator, North and South, who
was then present, and friendly to the bill,
agreed to that amendment in those precise
words. remember the last one whom l
consulted. l saw MIR. Badger entering from
the door of the cloak room at the corner.
He had been out, and went to consult him.
He said, Eyes, it is right" suggested to
him that l had seen every Senator, going
over all the names, who was friendly to the
bill, and every one had agreed to it. Ger
tainly,'' said he. Now" said I, "who
shall offer it?" Said he, at ought to
come from southern man. A northern man
brought forward the repeal, and a southern
man ought to bring forward the proviso
against reviving the old laws for the protec-
ton of slavery" l asked him if he would
do it? Certainly, sir" said he. He
walked right to his desk and offered it.
Pending the vote on the amendment, two or
three southern Senators came in, who were
not aware of the agreement, and they voted
in the negative; and those were the only
negative votes, according to my recollection,
against the Badger amendment. say, then
the Badger amendment was put in for the
purpose, and the only purpose, of declaring
that, while Congress would not interfere, it
would not permit, as consequence of its
act, any law to be revived that would either
protect or abolish slavery, or deprive the
people of the right to do as they pleased on
that question.
Mr.. President, the record is so full, so ex-
plicit on this matter, that there is no room
for miscontruction. The only point on
which anybody differed, so far as l know,
was the simple one of the extent of the linn
itation imposed by the Constitution on the
Territorial Legislature. That was the point
referred to the courts. Slavery was banished
forever from Congress-; the people were to
do as they pleased, so that they did not
violate the Constitution; and if they did, the
courts were to determine the extent of the
limitations imposed by the Constitution on
their action. That was stated to be the
object in the report accompanying the bill.
That is shown to be the object in the judi.
ciary clause of the bill: giving jurisdiction
to the territorial courts in all cases touching
the title to slaves, or personal freedom with.
out regard to the amount involved in con.
troversy, as in other cases. 1 could take
up the debates and show that it was under