The Constitutional. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1860-1861, 1860-09-08

A Chapter Of Brec kinridge.
BRECKENRIDGE on TIE KxNsAs BILL.

generally insist that the true policy was
the prohibition Of slavery in the Terrific
ries of the Union by act of Congress, and
by consequence insist upon applying this
principle to Utah and New Mexico Did
not the slaveholdiDg States, on the contra
~ Pfdnttag themselves on Me grOVRG Of
ederal Non-inteTvention, resist this policy
and by consequence, its adoption and APP
plcation to those Territoriesl And, after
long and fearful struggle, did not the lat
tel doctrine prevail land was it not car
ried into law in the Utah and New Mexico
acts (! Did not the public, the press, con-
ventions, and States, hail the result as n
final settlement in principle and substance
Of the subject of slavery l'-Coag. Globe,
rOl 20, p. AL.
Who, then, by advocating Intervention,
Is violating the compact Of 1907 Who
is violating the compact of 1851 Who
are the disturbers of this final settlement
Who are the agitators Who are unfaith-
full to the compromises of 1850 and tho
acts of 1854? John G. Breckenridge and
his Disunion party.
BRECKENRIDGE on SLAVERY IN KANSAS
among the many Misrepresentation
of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, perhaps none
is more fragrant than the charge that it
proposes to legislate slavery into Nebraska
and Kansas. Sir, if the bill contained
such feature, it could not receive my
vote. The right to establish involves the
right to prohibit, and denying both /
would vote for neither. go further, and
express the opinion that a clause legisla-
ting slavery into those Territories could
not command one Southern vote in this
House.-Cwg. Globe, roL. 80, p. AL.
BRECKINRIDCE ON TERRITORIAL POWERS.
at is contendcd on one hand, upon the
idea Of the equality of the States under tho
constitution and their common property in
the Territories, that the citizens of the
slaveholding States may remove to them
with their slaves, land that the local legis-
lature cannot rightfully exclude slavery
while in the territorial condition; but it is
conceded that the people may establish or
prohibit it when they come to exercise the
power Of a sovereign State.) On the other
hand, it is said that slavery being in dero-
CATION Of common right, can exist only by
force OF positive law; and it is denied that
the Constitution furnishes this law for tho
Territories: ard it Is further claimed that
the local Legislature may establish CT ev-
clude it any time after government is or
ganize1. As both appeal to the Constitu-
ton and base their respective argument
on opposite cou.truc iOns ofthat instrument,
the bill wisely refuses 20 make question
for Judicial Construction, the subject FOR
Legislative conflict, and properly refers 1t
to the tribunal created By the Constitution
itself fcr tAe very purpose Of deciding o.!
leases ia .ow and equality arising under l."
-C9p@.tI,Je, col. y, P. al.
There j. tho unH:siakable, unien.abic
ircou';ovaitit!r evidence that, in 1854,
John {. B1eckiaridee referred Tie power
o. tha Territorial Legislature over slavery
TO tie Supreme Court Precisely where
Judcr Dourlqs has left IT, He says the
/ CONSTITUTIONS ITSELF WISELY
and PROPERLY left .aIi the questions Il
law and equity to the Judiciary. AID. IA
pSG0, h. acc pts the nomination Of party
|p'edged t. Con@r- a;onql Intervention
| thereby violating his serious, solemn con-
stuciion Of the Constitution il 1854.
BErcKEEi8cL's rprA or THE og.rcr Of TIE
KANSAS rUL.
Then sit, neither the purpose nor eff
Of the bill is to'legislate slavery into Ne-
bra5ka and Kansas: but its effect IA to
sweep away this vcsfige Of Congressional
dictaion on this subiec; 20 allow the free
citizons o. this Union 20 enter the common
Territory with the Constitution and The
bin alone in their hands, and 70 REMIT
Tile DECISION OF THEIR RIGHTS
under both 10 the courts Of tLe Country
CoRg. Giobc, rol. %, At.
Can language be more explicit t. re-
init the decision Of their rights under both
to the Courts. Leaving the question purely
70 the Judiciary, and jet as the nominee
of party claiming Congressionalinterven-
ton, he accepts. Was there ever grosser
inconsistency T.
EREcKINEIDGg on TERRITORIAL POWERS
AGAIN.
"But, Mr. Chairman, apart from the his
torical argument, this contested fe1tur
(Teritorim powers over slayery,) in tho
bill is right in itself, for it rests on the
foundation principle Of American govern
ment-Coag. GLobe, roi. 20.
There it is--thc powers Of the Terrific
ry ever slerery is right in itself-tLe four
lion Of priuciple Of our government.
Why does John C. Breckinridge WISH to
disturb the foundation principle Of our
government by asking and promoting
Congressional ilteryentionl
BEECKINRIUCE's IDEA OF TIE Eft ECT o. rHE
COUNTRY F the PASSAGE OF TIE KANSAS
BILL.
mo, sir if We reject the bill, we open up
he waters Of bitterness, 70 Be sealed
again ia time but not until these agitators
shall have rioted awhile in tine confusion
Of the country. We blow high the famea
~ furnish lohitatiops for tlps, political