Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1860-03-29


slavery, they shall not have it, if they do want it,
they may have it; and he is for letting them have
il or not, Just as they please. But when the mem
bers of the Legislature elected By the people pass
a law, the Governor whom you appoint for them
has veto power; and bill passed by the Legisla-
ture cannot become law unless he assents TO it,
or it receives the votes of two thirds of each branch
of the Legislature of Kansas, at this time consist
ing of twenty five representatives and eight of the
thirteen councillors may vote for bill to abolish
slavery. and yet five members Of the council uni
ted with the Governor whom you appoint, defeat
the bill and this is what you all allowing the peo
pie of Kansas to do just they please. If this be
freedom, will anybody tell me what is despotisml
If this be allowing the people to do as they please
will anybody tell me what it is to deny them this
rightl riT "a
My colleague admitted that the compromise
measures of 1889 were passed by members of both
of the then existing parties; that in S52 both en-
dorscd those measures, and denounced as hereto
and traitor to the interests of the country any man
who, in Congress or out of Congress, should again
stir up the slavery question 1t was stirred up
Does any body know who did itl What Republ-
can was it that introduced, in 1854, the measure
which brought the slavery question again into Con-
gress? Was it the gentleman from New York p
The records do not read that way; but my colleague
introduced certain bill, known as the Nebraska,
bill; and when he introduced it what did he say in
his written report which accompaniment? He said
in his written report, that inasmuch as in the set
tlcmcnt of the compromise measures of 1850, Con-
gress did not think proper to repeal or affirm the
Mexican laws by which slavery abolished in
the Territories acquired from Mexico during the
war, therefore the Committee on Territories were
not prepared on that occasion to recommend a de-
parture from The policy adopted in 1850, by recon-
mcndng either an affrmance or repeal of the Mis-
souri Compromise; and yet in thirty days the bill
ad IN that ouri
Compromise was consistent with the measures Of
1850.
Now, sir, shall not accuse anybody of stating
that which is not true; but | ask, when was the
truth told7 fit that in January 1854 that
to repeal the Missouri Compromise would be de-
parure from the policy of 1850, ask ifit was also
true, in 1851, that the Compromise of 1850 was in
consistent with that of 1929? Both propositions
cannot stand together; and array the Chairman
of the Committee on Territories, who made this
statement in his official report, against the same
gcntlemln who. Few days afterwards, stated and
voted that the measures of 1850 we're inconsistent
with the compromise of 1890, and there leave it..
Then, sir, the question is asked here, with a reck-
lessncss at which am astoniShed, why do You not
carry out your plan of ofexcluding slavery from the
Territories7 Ny colleague understands that is a
part of the Republican platform that slavery is to
be excluded from the Territories Of the United
States, and he wants to know why we do not bring 2
forward blfor that purpose. 1t has been brou sht
forward in this body since have been member
of it. On the yeas and nays, voted TO keep slav
~ out of Kansas, and ne voted against the propo-
sition. Time and again have We triedit. | should
be very glad to have his CO operation in passing
such bill now; and perhaps, since he has found
out that the Popular Sovereignty about which he
has talked is dclusion, he may unite with US to
keep Slavery out of the Territories by the ac-
ton or Congress, which has the only legitimate au
thority over the subject in the Territories.
Sir. there is another statement that cannot per-
NIT to 60 unchallenged, and which am astonshed
to hear made in this body. ItreIates to the State
of Illinois. had seen the statement before in
some Of the newspapers; but believe was never
present when such statement was made, until to-
day. My colleague says: I'VE tried slavery i'm H.
linois while Territory; and have seen it stated
somewhere. in connection with this remark, that,
as soon as the people of Illinois permitted to
manage their own affairs they excluded slavery
Now, sir state to the Senate, and to the country
that slavery never existed in Illinois, by virtue
OF any law, either before or after she was State
Men may be seized and imprisoned in defiance of
law. There was an attempt to indentufc servants
in the State OF Illinois, under the old Territorial
laws, and when We formed State Constitution
and wish my colleague to hear it-so Ear from the
statement being true that the State Of Illinois had
slavery while Territory, and abolished it when
she formed a State Constitution, she gave, by her
State Constitution. the only validity to these inden-
tureshis they ever had. The Supreme Court of
the State Of illinois, the very first time this ques-
ton of the freedom of the negroes in that State was
brought before it, in the case of Phabe VS.. Jaw,
decided by Judge Lockwood, decided expressly
that, under the ordinance of l7S7, all attempts to
hold negroes in slavery, or to hold them as linden
tured servants. were illegal 1t rs slaves
they were attempted to be held il was by species
of hidentureship, the negroes going voluntarily be-
fore some clerk court, and there entering into
articles Of agreement with some party to serve him
for period Of years, oftentimes extending beyond
the ordinary period of human life; but when the
question came before the courts, after the State
Constitution was adopted, the Supreme Court of
the State decided that those indentures were void
under the ordinance of 1887, AM could not be sus
tanned; but that the people of Illinois, in forming
their State Constitution, having said that persons
rho had been fairly in,lenturcd, under the Terri
toral laws, should be held to serve out the periods
of their ndentures, the court held that, by virtue
of this constitutional provision. the indentures orr
ginally void were made valid. That was the condi.
ton of the negro population in Illinois,
While Illinois was Territory, some of its in
habtants retitioned repeatedly to Congress for per-
mission to establish slavery, and Congress as re-
peatedly refused their petitions There will be found
now among the Americ IN State papers the report
of John Randolph, of Virginia, denying the petit
ton Of the people of Illinois, to establish slavery
in that Territory. Then sir. say that slavery, as
such, never did exist in that States and the ground
upon which these indenturcs were sustained was
either that they we're entered into fairly, as one
freeman would enter into a contract with another,
or else that they had been confirmed by the adop.
ton of the Constitution. fs.
In rising, sir, my only intention was to repel these
imputations upon the Republican party of illinois,
and to correct the statement of my colleague in re-
gard to the existence slavery in that State slave
ry as such never was established in Illinois, either
before or after the Constitution was adopted, un.
less it was that slavery which one man by force
might establish over another. The very first time
the question came before the courts the decision
was made as have already stated.
At this point Mr.. Douglas made a reply occupy
ing two columns in the Globe, after which Mr..
Trum5ull reoined:
Mr.. President, it only needs statement of facts
and bringing my colleague back to the issue, to
show that he has not answered at all the points
which took. lie has undertaken to show that
slavery existed in Illinois and how does he do It'll
He refers to the census, which shows that some
body claimed slaves in Illinois. Does that make
1t a slave Statcf I believe that now slaves are
claimed in all our free States. There is Lennon
case now pending in the State of New York, where
the right is claimed to hold slaves in that State
He says that the Territorial Legislature of Illinois
adopted slave code. That is true, and the State
adopted a slave code. if you please. Many of the
first settlers Of Illinois wanted slavery, and nothing
kept slavery out and made Illinois what she is but
the ordinance 1857. The fact that persons claim
ed to hold slaves in Illinois docs not prove that any
were there. The very first time the question was