Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-09-16


Henry Clay, as | may show presently in another
connection.
But assume that Mr. Douglas in this statement
meant to declare that I, in 1856, from the same
stand with him advocated the doctrine that the Ter
Titorsl Legislature has The right to exclude slave
property pending the Territorial condition pre-
sumo he uses all these expressions in that sense;
sno, indeed that is the question which has been the
whole bone Of dispute
Well, fellow-eitizens have frat my own statement
to oppose 10 that Of the distinguished Senator. At
no time either before or after the passage Of the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, did ever entertain or inter
the opinion that Territorial Legislature pIior to
the formation of State Constitution, had the right
! to exclude slave property from the common Terrific
| ries of the Union. No. And no suthentic utter
snce of nine be found that susains that charge
You hnd IL stated in this extract which just now
read to you, and which never saw until the other
day, an irresponsible statement made by know not
whom, never revised seen by me, and, as l will
show you, against the whole tenor of my public
| speeches have suffered good deal by incorrect
reports Of my speeches. Il would be well perhaps,
IN come respeets since now, through the telegraph
and the press everything is dashed off by the first
impression, to adopt the plan Of gentlemen in the
Bsst who write out their speeches befJre delivery
But never do it. / speak as 1 am moved to do
when stand before the people. 1 do not doubt
the competency desire to be correct Of the gen
tlemen msking reports; but it nay frequently hap
pen, from the rapidity of utteIanee indistinct
ness Of delivery, that they fail TO catch the express
siOns and meaning of the speaker. Indeed it is
wonderful that the errors not greater and mere
numerous l would in this connection request of
the reporters to give me an opportunity of revising
what is said to-day.
Now, felloW-c,tizens, / will detain you briefly by
as clear an exposition as can make of the ci-cum-
stances under which the Ksnsas-Nebraska bill be-
came o law in 1854.
The friends of the measure, North and South,
aOrapd hat he Miaaauri limo ehnuld ho rapaolad
and the Territory opened to settlement. But there
was one capital point on which they differed Near
y all of the Southern friends of the BILL and few
from the North, denied that the power existed in
Congress Territorial legislature to exclude pro-
perry of any description recognized in the States,
during the Territorial condition. Others, and
among them Mr.. Douglas held that Territorial
Legislature might exclude slave property. 1t was
Constitutional question, and they agreed not to
make it subject of legislative dispute but 10 pro-
vide mode in the bill by which the question might
be promptly referred 10 the Supreme Court of the
United States for decision and all parties to
abide by the decision of that august tribunal as a
final settlement Of the Constitutional question. For
this purpose, whilst ordinarily appeal cannot be
taken from c Territorial Court to the Supreme
Court Of the Uni ed States uuless he matter in
troversy auouuts to a Thousand dollars clause
was inserted in the Kansas bill, providing that in
any case iovolVing the title to slave, appeal
might be taken to the Supreme Court without regard
TO the value Of the amount in controversy.
Nov, during the period between the passage Of
that bill and the decision of the Suprena Court, all
persons each side entertained their opinions
We N the South, held that the Territorial Legisa
ture did not possess the power. Mr. Douglas and
his friends held that the Territorial Legislature did
possess the power. But these points all we're
agreed-frst, that the action of the Territorial
Legislature must be "subject to the Constitution of
the United States;" second, that the limitations
imposed by the Constitution should be determined
by the Supreme Court; and third, that all should
acQuiesce in the decision when rendered. ICheers
think this is plain and true statement, and
for the purpose Of showing you that vas the view
taken by the Southern friends of the in
Congress- and certainly the view taken by myself,
/ proceed to read two three extracts from |
speech delivered by me in the House of Represen-
tatiVes, in 1858, before the bill passed Congress:
awe demand that all the citizens of the United |
States be allowed to enter the common Territory,
with Constitution alone in their hand. If that in
strunent protects the title of the master to his |
slave in this Territory you cannot complain.
and il it does not project his title, ask help
from Congress; ard the relations Of the Constiru
tion to the subject willing 10 have decided by
the courts of the United States'
Again:
alt is commended on ons hand upon the idea of the
equality Of the States under the Constitution, and
their common property in the Territories that the
citizens Of the saveholding States may remove 10
them with their slaves and that the local legislature
cannot rightfully exclude slavery while in terrific
rial condition but is conceded thst the people may
establish prohibit it when they to exercise
the power of q sovereign State. On the other hand,
it s laid that slavery being in derogation of common
right can exist only by force of positive law; and it
Is deuied that the Constitution furnishes this Law
for the Territories and it is further claimed that
the local legislature may establish exclude it |
any time after the government is organized As |
both parties appeal to the Constitution, and base |
their respective arguments on opposite construc- |
lions of that instrument the bill wisely refuses to
make question 1Or judicial construction the sub |
ject of gslstive conflict and properly refers it 10
the tribunal created by the Constitution ITSELF for
the very purpose Of deciding all in Ld0 and /
equity arising under it,"
Then, in spesking of the equality of the States:
"Carry tue idea 10 the Territories. What are
they To whom do they belong Who are to in
habit them, and what their political relations
to the rest Of the Confsdsrscy? They are regions
of country acquired by the common efforts and
treasure of all the States; they belong, therefore,
to the States for common use and enjoyment; the
citizens of the States are to inhabi them and when
the populRti, shall be sufficient, they TO be-
come equal members of the Union"
l think this is sufficient to prove that at the
period Of the passage of the Kansas Nebraska bill,
did not hold the doctrine that Territorial Legis-
lature could exclude slave property from the Terri
tory during the Territorial condition; but while l
held precisely the opposite opinion, was willing to
refer the question to the Court, and be bound by its
decision
The doctrines announced by me in that speech
we're just such as have declared in Kentucky,
such as declared in every public address which l
made in Ohio Indiana, Michigan, and PennsylVs-
mia. Afterwards. when il WAS understood that 1
had been reported to have admitted chat this power
belonged to the Territorial Legislature, in the
month of September or October 1856 the editor of
he Kentucky Statesman, journal published at
Lexington in aluding to this charge, made the fol-
lowing statement to which l beg leave to refer
you Remember, this was before the Presidential
election of 1856:
- Il WAS our pleasure to accompany Mr.. Breckin-
ridge on the occasion referred to- in his tour through
Ohio and Indiana, and to witness the warm re-
sponse of the National Democracy at Cincinnati
Hamilton, and Tippecanoe. to the avowal by him of
exactly the same sentiments We had often heard
him proclaim u Kentucky, and which are clearly
mbodied in the platform of our party.
He said it had been charged that the Demo-
cratic party intended to employ the Federal Gov
srnment to propagate slavery, and that il was in
It's federal relation, pro-slavery party. This he
said was not true. The Democratic party was
neither a pro-slavery party nor an anti slavery
party, but Constitutional party. 1t rejected the
interference of the Federal Government, whethe-
% introduce or exclude slavery, and left the come
mon Territories of the Union open to common set
lemept from all the States. He proceeded 10 say
hat each new State entitled to form its COnsii-
luton, and enter into the Union without discrimin-
lliOn by Congress, On account of the allowance or
prohibition Of slavery. Hence, if Kansas present.
ID herself with slavery in her Constitution, she mus
be admitted and il without it, still she must be
admitted ANY other principle, he added, would
be subversive Of the rights and equality of the
States.
1.-The allegation that Mr.. Breckenridge proclaim
ID the doctrine of SqUstter Sovereignty is simply
lntrue He said nothing upon which even plsus-
bile charge of tha' nature could be based"