The Shasta courier., 1860-09-29
A Word to Brec eckinridgers.

question, gentlemen, upon the ground that we
are speaking to no one man in particular. We
ask each ofyou individually Weask Mr.. Bass,
your candidate for the Assembly, We ask each
one who sought that nomination at the hands OF
your Convention. We ask each of your county
orators. When next they make public addresses
let them answer this question, /" Did you not, in
1884, support the Hook Kansas Nebraska Res
olutions?" We want a frank reply. We will
brook no dodging Say yes or no, or keep
your mouths shut. We assert that every one
of you did approve those resolutions. Now de-
ny it, If you darel
Well, having thus pinned you to the WALL
where there is chance to dodge, unless you
perform the gymnastic feat of Ieaping clean over
our head, we will proceed-with helmet on and
yizcr down-(the helmet Of truth and vizor of
justice) quietly and at our leisure to elegantly
stab you with that same series of resolutions.
Now hold your breath and prepare for the thrusts
cf regular Damascus blade. Here they come:
WHEREAS, A bill to organize the Territory of
Nebraska, has been introduced into the Senate
of the United States, which bill recognizes the
following doctrines: THAT ALL SUITS IN
V0LViNG QUESTIONS OF PERSONAL
FREEDOM AND TITLE TO SLAVES, SHALL
BE DECIDED BY THE LOCAL TRIBUNALS
OF THE STATES OR TERRITORIES, WITH
RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES that the
provisions of the Constitution of the United
States, in relation to fugtives from service shall
be faithfully executed in organized Territories
of the United States, well rs in the States
and that they ought to be rigidly enforced alike
in both: THAT THE PEOPLE RESIDING IN
THE TERRITORIES AND THE STATES TO
BE FORMED OUT OF THEM, SHALL DE-
CIOE ALL QUESTIONS PERTAINING T0
SLAVERY THEREIN, THROUGH THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES, TO- BE ELECTED FOR
THAT PURPOSE That the compromise of
eighteen hundred and fifty, is inconsistent
WITH and supersedes the compromise of eighteen
hundred and twenty, known the Missouri
Compromise and, chereas, the above principles
but reiterate in language and substance, the
compromise measures of eighteen hundred and
fifty, in relation to slavery, which measures
ought to be faithfully observed in all the States
and organized Territories Therefore be it
ResoIUed, By the Senate and Assembly of the
State of California, that approve of the pro-
visions as set forth, of the bill for An Act to
organize the Territory of Nebraska" introduced
into the Senate OF the United States, on the 23d
of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-four
Resolrcd, That Senators in Congress be
instructed, and our Representatives requested to
vote for, and to use their best exertions to pro-
cure the passage of said bill.
They were introduced by Mr. Hook, Senator
from Ell Dorado, and were written,so understood
at the time, by Senator Crabb, then the leader
of the very hottest class of Southern hot-head
politicians in California.
Now let any man read them, and then remem-
Der the remarks of Senator Gwiu delivered in
the Senate last wnter-wherein he declared
that he would never have voted for the Kansas
Nebraska Dill if Mr.. Douglas had in 1854 placed
the same Interpretation on it that he does now
and then say what he thinks of DR.. Gwin's
assertion. Why our Legislature instructed him
to vote for that bill, because, as the resolutions
themselves asserted, it declared just what Doug
las now asserts, to wit: that the people resid-
ing in the Territories, and the States to be form
ed out Of them, shall decide all questions per-
tanning to slavery therein, through their repre-
sentatives, to be elected for that purpose.
Douglas does not now claim for them any
thing more than did Democratic Legisla-
ture in 1854. In fact that Legislature inter-
preted the Bill then precisely Douglas does
now-and for that very reason Instructed DR..
Gwn to vote for it. And yet he has the effron-
terry to say that if he had then understood it as
did the Legislature which instructed him, he
would not have voted for it
I, i. N b;-,or;c,l f,c, hat e;,co ,oo,
have beer crushed, as" between the upper and
neither milestone" in Democratic State Conven-
tess, for having voted against these resolutions.
We have ourself been in Democratic State Con-
veutions and seen gentlemen defeated for the sole
reason that they had voted against the Hook
Resolutions And further, we assert that the
very men who then raised the question, are now
blatant Breckinridgers. We assert, and defy
successful contradiction, that in no less than two
Democratic State Conventions have candidates
been defeated for having voted against the
Hook Resolutions candidates declaring
at the time they thus voted that they endorsed
the sentiments contained in the resolutions, but
deemed them an impertinent interference with
a matter that was wholly and entirely of Fed
eral character, and therefore not one upon which
State Legislatures had right to legislate.