Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-01-28

TERRITORIAL POLICY.
The Senate proceeded to the consideration OF the
following resolution, which was suomit'eu ny NIL
Pugh on the 10th ultmo
Resolred That the Committee on territories DC
instructed to inquire into the expedency oil repeal
ing so much of the act approved September 1901,
for the organization of territorial governments in
New Mexico and Utah, as requires that all the laws
passed by the Legislatures Of those Territories shall
be submitted to Congress for approval or rejection
The pending question being on the amendment OF
Mr. Harlan to insert at the end of the resolution the
following
And said committee is also instructed to inquire
into the propriety of authorizing the people OF each
of said Territories to elect all their territorial OIL
GERS, executive, legislative, and judicial.
Mr.. CLINGMAN Mr.. President tits my purpose
to speak to-day of the condition of the country, as
connected with agitation of the slavery question.
shall do this with perfect ankness and with no re-
serve except what parliamentary rules and Sena-
torial courtesies impose. By such course only can
the real nature of the impending evil be ascertain
cd and remedy suggested. Having carefully
studied the subject during the greater part OF my
political life and from different points OF view, IN
tend to express my opinions seriously, and as fully
as the occasion seems to require
Before speaking directly to the merits Of the sub
ject, | shall devote few minutes to preliminary
question. 1t has been contended that the Demo-
cratic party is responsible for the antislavery aSta
ton of the North. retrospect into the past VIII
vindicatc it most triumphanty from the charge
The course of the old Federal party, in the war of
1872 had brought it into dscredit and disgrace with
the American people Its leaders, with a view OF re-
covering the popular favor and through it the con-
troll of the Government seized upon the occasion OF
the application of Missouri for admission into the
Union and, by appealing to the antl-slavery feeling
of the northern States, created sectional party
tip1a tha m
sion of the State. During the struggle provision
was adopted that slavery should never exist In the
territory west of Missouri and north of the line OF
latitude of &c deg. 30 min. Though this arrange
ment was distasteful to the South and by many re-
garded as dishonorable and unconstitutional, 1t was
acquiesced in for the sake of peace. And when, in
1916, Texas was annexed to the Union, by the
Democratic party mainly, this Missouri line was ex-
tended through it. and slavery which legally exist
ed in every part Of that State, abolished and
prohibited north of the line.
When, subsequently, territory was acquired from
Mexico, the Democratic party, with but few excep-
TONS attempted to apply the same principles to 1t,
and extend the line of SO deg 30 min through it.
The proposition was again and again broug forward
ed bv the distinguished Senator from Illinois Mr..
Douglas and Others and often rejected by the COM
bned vote c the entire hg party of the North anda
portion of the Democrats Of that section. After
years of fruitlcSs struggle it was abandoned, and
the principle of congressional nOnntervention adj
opted by the compromise measures Of 1850.
In other words it was then established in sub
stance and effect that the people of the Territories
free from all congressional legislation on the subject
of slavery should regulate it for themselves subject
only to the limitations of the Constitution of the
United States, interpreted by the courts OF the
country. This settlement like the proposition for
the extension of the Missouri line. was resisted by
the great body of the northern Wings, who were
Al NNi
slavery in any mode. 1t was also opposed by the
southern friends Of the Missouri line, who prefer
red that system to congressional non-intervention,
and who still cherished the hope that it might hc
adopted. In the final struggle, they were reduced
TO a dozen southern Senators and thirty Representa-
tiVeS, of whom | was one.
call the attention of Senators to another strik
ing fact in this connection. 1t is charged not only
by the northern Opposition, but also 10y the south
ern opponents of the Democratic party, that it is
responsible for the alleged evils of congressional
non-interventOn and the disturbances Of so-called
"sgmatter sorereigaty' in the Territories affirm
that in 1850, when this system adopted, it was
sustained by the representatives of the southern
Wings with the greatest unanmity. | was no eX-
ceptiOa to this remark for had announced already
my separation from the organization of the Wing
party. | repeat that the southern Opposition Of
that day. under the lead of Mr.. Clay, were the first
portion of their fellow citizens to abandon the Mis-
souri, line and support the principle Of non-interven
ton by Congress. On the other hand, the last and
frmcSt friends of the Missouri line those re-
presented at the Nashville convention-whose utti-
1natnm it was-and such Senators and Represen-
tatives from the South as were i'll that day de-
nounccd uitrds and .tre-eateTS because Of their
not adopting the principle of congressional nonn-
tcrventiOn in lieu OF the Missouri line When these
facts remembered will the present southern OPP
position and its organs continue to aSSail the Demo-
cratic party for an act which they themselves earn
eStly and unitedly concurred in? Can they take
the ground that it was right to abolish the Missouri
line in order that free States should be made south
of it. but that it should not, in like manner, be OBJ
liberated to place the South on an equal footing
north of it? After a majority both of the South
and of the Democratic party had adopted the prin-
cple Of congressional nonntcrvention we who had
opposed it acquiesced and the Democratic and Wing
conventions of 1852 both sanctioned it.
When the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska
were admitted the Democratic party applied the
same principle to them; and in so doing, found it
necessary to repeal the old Missouri restriction, in
order that there might be no Intervention by Con-
greSs to control in any way the inhabitants of those
Territories. Were they not committed to this, in
the strongest and most emphatic terms by their
platform and their late action to the Mexican ter
rtories, while the Wing or Opposition convention
had protested in its PLATFORM to have acquiesced in
the same principles? But it is said that both par
ties had declared themselves opposed to further
agitation of The slavery question. So they had but
there specific pledge in favor of congressional
non-intervention in the Territories; and the carry
ing it out oughtto have produced agitation what
ever, and would not in healthy state of public
opinion in the North. The Democratic party could
not honorably avoid doing what it did; and would
have been liable to the charge, had it failed to do
this of shifting its principles from time to time and
so shaping its course as to favor non-interventon
when il would thereby admit free States into the
Union and of going for congressional Intervention,
on the other hand, when it might thereby prevent
the formation of a slaveholdng State. Had it failed
to maintain its principles this occasion, it would
have been justly exposed to this charge. Their op-
ponents in the North however, the repeal of the
Missouri restriction, raised ut immense clam
or, showing that their friendship for non-nteryen-
ton only pretended, and that they had acquies-
ced in the measures of 1850 only because they crea-
ted Eren Stata Snuih Of 2G don ia