Daily Democrat and news. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1859-1864, 1860-01-04
Hon. John e. BvcCkinT1oges


exposition of those Of the Vice-l'es'-
dent stand first in interest. a few days
prior to the publication Of the fresi-
dont's Message, Mr.. Brcckinridge APP
peared before the members of the Legs
lature of kentucky, TO thank them IN
person for the honor conferred upon
him, in his selection as the successor OF
Nr. CrittendcD, in the Senate OF the
United States. He embraced the OPP
portuuity to express his opinions on the
principal political topics Of the day
The question of Slavery in the Terrific
ries Of the United States being the one
upon which his views had been solicit
ed, he proceeded to give an exposition Of
them as follows:
Gentlemen, | bow to the decision of
the Supreme Court Of the United States
upon every question within its proper
jurisdiction, whether it corresponds with
my private opinion or not; only bow a
trifle lower when it happens to do SO, as
the decision in the bred Scott case does.
| approve it in all its parts as sound
exposition OF the law and constitutional
ripbis Of the States, and citizens that In
habit them. Applause. 1t may not
DO improper for me here to add that SO
great an interest did take III that de-
cision, and in its principles being under
stood in the commonwealth Of Kentucky,
that took the trouble, at my own cost,
to print or have printed large edition
of that decision to scatter it over the
State, and unless the mails have mis-
carried, there is scarcely member cleo
ted to the Legislature who has not re-
ceivcd copy with my frank.
To approve the decision OF the Su-
prcmc Court in the bred Scott case
would seem to settle the whole question
of Territorial sovereignty, as | think
will presently appear; but, in order that
no one may misunderstood my views on
that q ,estion, l will, with your leave,
detain you with brief review Of what
was done as to the Slavery question up
to the time Of that decision, referring
also to the duties imposed by it.
THE MISSOURI LINE.
was in the Congress Of the United
States when that Missouri line was re-
pealed. | never would have voted for
any bill organizing the Territory Of
Kansas as long rs that odious
stigma upon our institutions remained
upon the statutc-book. ! voted cheer
fully for its repeal, and in doing that |
cast no reflection upon the wise patriots
that acquicsced in it at the time it was
established. 1t was repealed, and we
passed the act known as the Kansas Ne
braska bill The Abolition, or quasi
Abolition Party Of the United States
were constantly contending that it was
the right of Congress to prohibit slavery
in the common Territories of the Union.
The Democratic Party, aided by most
Of the gentlemen from the South, took
the opposite view of the case. Our OBJ
jcct was, if possible, to withdraw that
question from the Halls Of Congress,
and place it where it could no longer
risk the public welfare and the public
interest. In the Congress Of the United
States it had been agitated all the time
to the disadvantage Of the South; &C.
cordiugly Il have not copy of the bill
before me now, but remember its lead
ing provisions) bill was passed, re-
pealing the Missouri line, and leaving
those Territories upon the contract and
the assertion that the bill made. Did
we intend to legis!atc S avery into Kan.
sas and Nebraska We denied that,
and denied it upon the face of the bill
itself. The settlement thus made after
wards received the approval of the peo-
pie Of the whole country. The bill
said within itself, not that we intend to
legislate Slavery into the Territories, but
to leave the people free to form their
own domestic institutions, subject only
to the Constitution Of the United States
That was a. much as we could agree
upon. There was point upon
which We coul4 not agree. A consider
able portion of the Northern Democra-
Cy uClN CuoI toIdNCIy was III uCIoS1tioil
OF common right, and could only exist
by force Of positive law. They con-
tended that the Constitution did not fur
nish that law, and that the stakeholder
could not go into the Territories with
his slaves with the Constitution to AL.
thorizc him in holding his slaves as
property, or to protect him. The South
generally, without distinction or party,
held the opposite view. They held that
the citizens of all the States may &C
with whatever was recognized by the
Constitution as property, and enjoy it
That did not seem to be denied to any
article OF property except slaves. Ac'
cordingly, the bill contained the prov u.s.
ion that any question in reference tc
Slavery in the United States, and the
understanding was that whatever the jul
dicial decision should be, it would be
binding upon all parties, not only by
virtue Of the agreement, but under the
obligation Of the citizens to respect the
authority of tho legally constituted
Courts Of the country.
WHAT HE SAID IN 1856.
1t was under these circumstances the
Territory of Kansas was in state o.
commOtion, and when that question had