Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-05-19

have the same force and effect within the said Terri
tory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United
States except the eighth section Of the act prePara
tory to the admission of Missouri into the Union,
approved March g. 1920, which, being inconsistent
with the principle of non-interventon by Congress
with slavery in the States and Territories, as recog
| nized by the legislation Of 1850 commonly called
| the compromise measures is hereby declared mop
erative and void it being the true intent ana
meaning of this act not to egslate slavery into any
Territory or State nor to exclude it therrfrom but
to leave the people thereof perfectly Tree TO form
and regulate their domestic institutions IN their own
way, subject only to the Constitution Oh Tue Vn'eo
States" .g.-.-.r ~.
The Missouri line was repealed; and why BE
cause it as unconstitutional or wrong IN itself =
| No sir: but because it was inconsistent with the
principle of non-intervention by Congress with
slavery in the States and Territories
admit, if the act had stopped there, there might
have been some plausibilIty in the argument but
| what is the conclusion -
| Provided That nothing herein contained shall
he construed to revive or put in force any law or
regulation which may have existed prior to the act
| of 9th March, 1920 either protecting, establishing
prohibiting or aboshing slavery"
That is Congress would not only not interfere IT.
self; would not only not allow its own statutes to
| stand in the way but would not revive any old law
t which might have been in force by which slavery
was protected in that Territory. Is it not perfectly
clear that the whole purpose Of the act and of the
party at that day. to free Congress from all leg
SlatiOn the subject Of slavery in the Territories
whether by of protection or establishment, or
prohibition and leave the Territory free to act as the
| Constitution permitted it? remember well how
| that clause came to be inserted in the bill During
the discussion, it was said, by gentlemen who OPP
| posed the BILL that if Congress simply repealed the
restriction the result would be that the old Louisiana
| law establishing and protecting slavery, would he
revived To meet that argument this clause was
&c tho and cd
| the support of every friend of the bill who voted
| for it in both Houses Of Congress.
| submit therefore, that upon fair construction
of that act you come to no other CONCLUSION ex
cept that Congress intended to ahnegate the exercise
| of any power over this question in the Territories,
and to denv its purpose to legiSlate whether to
| tabsh or prohibit to restrict or protect slavery
! in the Territories; and in 1856, in platform
| expressly declared the doctrine "non-intervcntion
with slavery in State Territory. and in the Dis
| trict of Columbia" Where did that leave it? Con-
gresS left it. of course in the States, to the States
| in the Terrtories-there being no law of Congress
left for that repeal removed the last act of Congress
| which bore upon them-it left it unaffected in any
way by congressional legislation; and in the Dis
| trict Of Columbia slavery had already been estab
lished and was protected by law that it left it
there untouched | say this declaration received
the unanimous assent of all the States represented
| in the Cincinnati convention. I happened to be
member of that convention-the only convention Of
! the kind which believe ever had the honor Of be-
| ing in; and may have little personal pride in
| that matter but I 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 opponents, voted that
| ~ 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 South agreed upon
| this principle Of non-intervention II there ever
| was compromise made under this government that
| was one Each side surrendered something. We
surrendered our claim to protection; northern
| friends abandoned the Wilmot proviso and every
! thing looking to it, and met common ground
| Though | was not an original party to the agree
| ment am bound to it by my acquiescence; and
hold that neither section can honorably depart from
it without some great pressing necessity which does
not now exist
know it is said that the bred Scott decision has
modified the question. ] confess | do not think ST.
fully agree to the decision in the sense in which
the Senator from Mississippi explains it but let us
test it for moment in this way: in that decision
the court says the Missouri compromise line, or the
Wilmot proviso is unconstitutional Granted but
suppose they had decided the other way and said it
constitutional, would the northern men have
had right to cone forward and say. this question
being settled in favor, the Supreme Court hav-
ing admitted that the Wilmot proviso is constitu-
tonal, now want to go in for Intervention against
slavery? I am sure every Democrat in the South
would have said at once, "though YOU have this
power, you are not bound to exercise it." Well
suppose the court decided that Congress have the
right to protect and not to prohibit We hOnora-
bly, and fairly, without a great pressing necessity
abandon the policy Of non-interyention? | think
not
Now, is there any such necessity? The Senator
himself admits that there is not. His colleague
W. al, 4
code or congressional legislation on the subject but
the Senator from Mississippi, to whom am reply
ing says that there is such necessity at this time
Then why depart from the principle Of non-inter-
vention? | am free to admit that it. in an unwise
moment, man makes a compromise that is ruinous
to him, he may, under great necessity, avoid it
perhaps; but deny that any such necessity exists
in this case; and the highest evidence of 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 vet found a
second for it. Ii any one Senator upon this floor
notwithstanding the urgent and eloquent appeals of
that gentleman, has declared his willingness to vote
for it. have not heard him say So and do rot be-
heve there is such one. And yet everybody
knows that Kansas has lately refused all protection
to slave property. If gentlemen therefore intend
to stand up for all their ghts to the fullest extent
why not at once come up and pass law to protect
o'"'ee III iAaisas lucy SHOW, ny their conduct
that they do not believe that any real necessity ex.
lists in fact for departing from non-intervention.
say, then, Mr. President, that in nv Judgment
no necessity exists for abandonment Of the com.
promise; but the Senator proposes to make de.
claration that We shall do it in a future contingency
| have no doubt of the power of the government,
but why make that decarationy A declaration of
the Senate binds nobody. These are naked resolu-
tons they are not laws; they carry no force to the
country except what may be derived from the
soundness of the opinions advanced in them. They
will not control the action of the courts They will
not perhaps, change the opinion Of single man in
thls country Why pass themG l think shall
show, before take my seat, some very valid and
strong reasons why we should not do So
NV first nhiectior Than 70 a e