Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1860-08-08

question before congress aud that the
resent the republicans of the ninth congressional district
Of Ma.saehusetts; AppauseQ a.. III. - a..
! territorial policy Very frequently we are msled by
reasoning in the by stating things at large without
looking at the details beg, therefore, that you VIII
permit me TO call your particular attention to this sub
At the last session of congress Mr. Grow, the very intel
gen chairman Of the committee territories reported
five bills organizing five distinct On the
tenth of Nav, the first Of these bills called up in the
house. which the bill the organization the
Ttorv OF Idaho On the motion of Mr. Grow himself the
further consideration of the bills postponed till
urday On Friday, Mr. Grow proposed TO call business
relating territories already organized. member
objected to that notion and therefore the bill anizng
the territories were brought up II was claimed here on
Monday night last by the person who addressed YOU that
ms should SHOW iiseii above water he would sink it,
He said that lie did it, aud he claimed il OF the
most glorious day work he performed, which
your children would remember with pride | believe in
| giving every man his due, but when that gentleman
SIN funeral professions Tor ve corpses think he boast
ed of doing more than he accomplished alone That work
divided with Barksdale of Mississippi lost his
Wig daughter and applause in the conflict between
northwest, John f. Potter, appeared in that conflict
1t was also divided with Houston of Alabama who so
chuscits CSr Train and who, after struggle Of a
whole day, compelled to apologize 10 the house for
| Houston and Mr.. Thomas, from of the other
slave states, contributed Kill those bills Though
cannot tell what part each contributed to that result
Let further; that when the which was
republican representatives voted in favor laying on
the table. Then came mp the second bill think the
third; but have been told that upon the motion lay
the second PHI upon ne table only four republican mem
laid on the table Friday, and twas thought that dis
posed of the business but want it understood that
these bills were laid the table by the Of who
were not opposed to them terri oral bills. Every
democrat from the SOUTH every south american, think,
and do not know but every Douglas democrat voted to
lay them ON the table; but mau will claim that the
southern men voted III that way because they were
against organizing the territories. Mr. Craig, member
from Missouri said "If yOu will these bills as
10 1lloW US TO go INTO the territories with our negroes
VIII vote for every one of them" Here members
from the north and south voting against the bls-the
members from the south voting against them because of
their antsayery character. There in each of the
Pllis an anayery clause which declared as ollows;
PROVIDED that whereas slavery has do legal isence in
SAID territory, nothing herein contained shall be con-
strued 10 authorize permit its existence therein.
say, therefore, that when republican from the north
comes here undertakes to say that he killed those
bills, would ask him how he did it. How it? BY
keeping from his friends and voting with their
emies applause He left the republicans of the north
anu voted with the prosayey men of the south that is
the way those bills We're killed.
discussion on the saturday following On Thursday
Idaho bill was LAID over till Saturday, and ON saturday
M, Grow called I up ana point Of order was made,
that inasmuch the bill had been laid the table
Friday, il could not be called up again But the bill
came before the mouse H! saturday, contained der-
ent provision from that which it contained the Friday
require two thirds vote to override the veto Of the
governor, whereas before it only required majority.
At any rate, the speaker decided in order On Fri
day the discussion took place the territorial policy,
when Mr. Curtis, Mr. Thayer and MIR. Gooch of Massa.
chusetts and Others spoke at large the subject The
member from this district, Friday developed his views
that he declared that congressional Intervention in the
territories was humbug Washington, than sixty
years ago writing to Lafayette Washington, standing
! at the beginning OF system of government, and
looking back over the stormy period OF the revolution
and over the troubled period OF the old confederation,
looking with his eye of wisdom and of prescence down
the future of this country which he had contributed
ms arms and by ms wisdom to erect looking to the great
ordinance Of 1881 which swept slavery out of the mag
adopted that policy, and l think it a wise one" All
subsequent time has shown the wisdom of that act Blu.
district in Massachusetts to pronounce that policy
hun6ug He told congress in that discussion on Fri
regarded as a
humbug. When the vote came to be taken this ques
ton, after the development of the views of gentlemen,
there not single republican who voted to Law that
bill the table after they understood position of the
knew the result which course led not one oftem
Voted for except the member IRON the ninth district
That is not all Six out of the ten, who for lavng
the first bill on the table Friday, voted against abng
the bill, Saturday. Now wish to know il did not have
some evidence that the republican mem did agree
WITH the policy of calling congressional interference
l not have some evidence to authorize me to
express the opinion which l did? 1 say with
agree with that territorial policy You cannot pro-
uuce any where the resolutions Of republican
ton state national endorsing that policy You can
not produce speech delivered by member of congress-
fully endorsing that doctrine except one and it
use for man TO come here and tell that does
not shine in heaven. His declaration will exngush
the sun nor will his declaration blot out all this
cumu alton of evidence that the republicans do APP
prove of this policy of non-nerventon by letting tile
curse OF slavery run over the country ask if the
publican party did not grow out of this very policy?
Was it not from the repeal OF the Missouri promise
ACT mat ne republican party grew Is there republic
can present whose recollection can 90 back to 1854 when
Earle the editor Of the spy and poured forth his
dignan invective against the repeal of Missouri
compromise? DO not all know that il was re-
peal of the Missouri compromise that gave birth the
years we are told that We are making great crv over
humbug is an insult to The intelligence OF the people
of this district. (Applause)
whole uninterrupted evening mas been given TO tho
discussion the other side-that speech was printed;
we have allowed it to remain unanswered up to this
time Now if there is upon the other side, confidence
courage and manlness enough to let this side heard
calmly and the report of this night proceedings pub
ther discussion that can well be cared Tor all ask
that this question shall he left TO the calm consideration
of the jury before whom is 10 be tried and who
render the verdict say the republican party in this
district do not want to be called upon to endorse the Mis-
sour compromise and yet your representative in con
ton, undertook to Introduce an amendment which was
read'an amendment TO establish the land districts Of
Jefferson and Nevada. ask yOu to consider what
one OF Inc sections III tle amendment which lie offered
The third section provides-
each of the land districts above described whenever they
shall have formed temporary government, shall be en-
titled TO one delegate in congress- who shall receive the
same compensation and enjoy the same privileges
delegate rom terrt0ry and that SO much Of said def
iersOn land districts within the limits
rores of Kansas and Nebraska shall be- and hereby
excluded from the operation D the act organizing the
territories of Kansas and Nebraska, excepting
thereof as repeats the Missouri compromise
Thus you see, gentlemen, that the proposition of your
representative was to endorse the repeal Of the Missouri
ask that is view of the subject;
in favor Of endorsing the Missouri compromise when you
to this party? But say again. that votes are not
more objectionable than some of the arguments in sup
representative said Now Sir You say that slave labor
is a divine Institution; we say that nee labor is li-
cemed that these two forces free labor slave labor
should contend fairly and that stronger should pre-
vail and if slavery established over free labor thtn
will admit that slave labor is an institution divine
than free labor That is the divinity slave labor is
made to depend upon its establishment non-estabisl
ment IN any given place. Well, it is established in New
Mexico and therefore, according to the argument the
gentleman, it is more divine that free labor.
But it may be said it has not had fair play there What
is meant by tlaty 1t simply means that members of
congress Interfere There was act of congress inter
amounts TO this that instead of stopping discuss the
question OF the right orwrong of slavery reduced
TO the simple question of determining whe her there
has been fair play between free and slave labor. II
ground it would be- in fact the same as saving that tie
establishment OF slave labor in Virginia is more divine
THAI free labor You might well say that any other
Institution is divine on the principle. Wrong has
prevailed the world the strong the weak have
many. This mode Ct treating the question is wrong in
theory and destructive in pactice it is surrenderng The
whole field OF argument the enemy
But wish to know what has been the operation of
TINS principle ofnOn-interventOn; and shall show
S9n Dy the argument made the other evening that the
ulnersnce between the gentleman and MIR. Douglas is
very narrow Mr. Douglas saws he is willing they should
vote slavery up or down. he not which, if ter
rtora legislature vote for slavery, let them have IT. if
not let slavery stay out Of the territory he saws
and will abide by the decisinn The sn1einn court
dressed the audience in the CITY Hail. Monday eve
ng SAID he would provide for appeal from the squat
meant by that fthee is to be appeal from the squat
tercourts to the supreme court Of the United States let
Us see how the law operates. suppose white In
Nevada claims to hold negro NJ slavery The black
EVes 10 llle court, undertakes
his freedom The squatter decides that the white
man has right TO him. The is then carried up TO
ihe supreme court OF the United States You know gem
ele what is the doctrine of the democratic party as
represented by the breckenridge wing reference to the
constitution Of the United states, that without any act
Of the territorial legislature of congress from
slave state may 20 into the territories hold his
slave because the constitution of the United States re
cognzes property in slaves and that constitution extends
over the whole country; therefore from South
Carolina may go there and hold his slave you may 20
there ana hold your OK or your horse Have you any
doubt as To- what the decision ofhe supreme would
PEI nj DouKas would carry the same question to the
same court Then will be that this decision must
mr. m In hpu Is ~