The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1860-07-06


in the Cincinnati convention. happened to
be member of that convention the only
convention of the kind which believe ever
had the honor OF being in and | may have a
| littlepersonrl pride in that matter; but am
very sure am not mistaken when | say it was
unanimously adopted by all the delegates there
assembled, alike from the North and the South.
! We also, out of abundance of caution to meet
the views OF our opponents, voted that every
new State should be admitted with or without
slavery, as it pleased.
Then, Mr.. President, where do we stand
The Democracy of the North and the Soath a.
greed upon this principle OF non-interventlOn.
Ii there ever was compromise made under this
/ Government, that was one. Eeach side SUI
rendered something. We surrendered our
claim TO protection; our northern friends aban-
doned the Wilmot proviso, and everything look
! ing TO it, and met us on common ground.
| Though was not an original party to the a.
greement, | am bound to it by my acQuiescence;
and hold that neither section can honorably
depart from it without some great pressing ne
cessity, which does not now exist.
| know it is said that the Dred Scott decision
has modified the question. / confess do not
think so. I fully agree to the decision in the
sense in which the Senator from Mississippi ex-
explains 1t !; but let US test it for a moment in
this way in that decision the court say the
Missouri compromise line, or The Wilmot pro-
vISo, is unconstitutional. Granted but sup
| pose they had decided the other way, and said
| II was constitutional, would the northern men
have had right to come forward and say, "this
! question being settled in our favor, the Su-
| preme Court having admitted that the Wlmot
! Provlso is constitutional, we now want 10 so in
tor Intervention against slavery? ! am sure
every Democrat in the South would have said
at once; "though you have thus power, you'are
not bound to exercise it," Well, suppose the
court decided that Congress have the right to
protect, and not to prohibit, can we honoraoly
and fairly, without a great pressing necessity,
abandon the policy of nom Intervention
think not.
Now, is here any such necessity The Sem
ator himself admits that there is not. His col
| league (Mr. BRowN) insists that we ought to
have slave code or congressional legislation
on the subject but the Senator from Mississippi
to whom am replying, says that there is no
such necessity at this time. Then why depart
from the principle OF non- intervention? | am
free to admit that If, in an unwiSe moment, q.
ne may, under great necessity, avoid it, perhaps,
but deny that any such necessity exists in this
case and the highest evidence OF it is that the
Senator from Mississippi, who sits behind me,
Mr.. BRowN,) has been striving for the last three
or four months to get positive act passed TO
protect slavery in Kansas, and he has never yet
found a second tor IT. If any one Senator upon
this floor, notwithstanding the urgent and eo-
IL It tL,kz
his willingness to vote for it, have not heard
him say SO, and do not believe there is such
one. And yet everybody knows that Kansas
has lately refused all protection to slave prop
erty. IT gentlemen, therefore, intend 10 stand
up for all their rights to the fullest extent, why
not at once come up and pass law to protect
slaves in Kansas? They show, by their con-
duct, that they do not believe that any real ne
ce8slty exists in fact for departing from non
Intervention.
| say, then, Mr.. President, that in nv iudg-
ment no necessity exists for an abandonment of
the compromise; but the Senator proposes to
make declaration that we shall do It in fu-
ture contingency. | have no doubt of the pow
er OF the Government, but why make that dec
laratlon? declaration of the Senate binds
nobody. these are naked resolutions E; they
are not laws; they carry no force to the coun-
try except what may be derived from the sound
ness OF the opinions advanced in them. They
will not control the action OF the courts They
will not, perhaps, change the opinion of sin
gle man in this country. Why pass them
think shall show, before take my seat, some
very valid and strong reasons why we should
not do SO.
My first objection, then, is, that the system
OF non-l0terventlon is compromise, and that
no necessity exists TO abandon it, as have al
ready stated. | come now TO my second oblec-
tion. During the discussion of 1850, the advo-
Gates of non-intervention said, if you adopt il,
if you leave the question TO the Territ orial Le-
gislature, they may pass laws to protect slave
property. | resisted it. l made speech after
speech to show that the Mexlcans were hostile
to US that they were not accustomed to slave
ry, and might legislate against it but what has
been the result New Mexico has passed the
most stringent slave code. There is, perhaps, |
not State in the Union that has, by law, pro-
tected slave property more securely than the
Territory OF New Mexico, which reaches from
Texas 10 the Gulf of CALIFORNIA, and extends up
to the thir:y-elght degree OF north latitude. |
We were content with the line of Sc deg. 80 |
min. we were willing to run the Missouri line |
to The Pacific, and abolish slavery absolutely |
north of 36 deg. 80 min. and take mere i'm
plication without an express protection south
of it. Sir, practically by non-intervention, we
have got more than we asked for; we have got
larger amount OF territory than we should
have obtained under the Missouri compromise
line. Gentlemen may say, perhaps, that Kan
lPUISIatpd | N
we should not have got Kansas at all under the
Missouri compromise. Kansas only comes
down to the thirty-seventh parallel, the whole
hnir .fAh h.