Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1860-04-07
admitted as they should be formed, whenever they


---.-----au-z----.-- ---.--z-.------u------
admitted as they should be formed, whenever they
should become States
Mr.. Wigfall. That was the principle
Mr.. Coamer. That was the provision in re-
lation TO them.
Mr.. NigEll. That the Territories SHOULD settle
it for themselves; and that Congress should not in
the mean time, interpose to prohibit the introduce
ton Of slavery
Mr.. Collamer. No, sir. When the gentleman
says the Territories should settle it for themselves
he includes more than understand it
Mr.. Wiglall ! am not a squater-sovcreignty
man.
Mr. Coramer. That is point You have got in
that was not put in. II was put in in relation TO
Nebraska and Kansas; but it was not put in in re-
lation to the others.
Mr.. Wigfl Did they not have the right to
regulate their own affairs, without any interposi-
ton Of Congress as to slavery
Mr.. Collamer. There was nothing said about
that
Mr.. Wigfall. Was there any interposition
the part Of Congress, either TO establish or pro-
hibit slavery there
Mr. Coamer. There was none.
Mr.. wighll. Then the principle, if there was
any principle, involved in the Utah and New Mex
leo bills, was, that Congress should not legisate
either to establish or protect
Mr.. Collamer. You are drawing conclusion.
Mr.. Wigfal am asking for Information
Mr.. Colamer. The bills are very plain.
Mr. Wigfll. These are historical facts; only
philosophers can give reasons. was asking for
a reason, possibly; but want the Senator, before
he goes on, to answer that Yon see | am a new
Senator yet and do not understand these questions.
Now, | UNDERSTANDABLE least before got here l
had supposed that the Utah and New Mexico bills
left this question beyond all doubt-that Congress
did not, in those bills, either interpose for or
against slavery. Is that true, or is it not
MIR Collampr have stated ahout that. There
had been difficulty in forming those territorial
governments because part Of the country insist
ed on putting in the ordinance Of 1857.
Mr. Wigfall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Colamer. Congress could not agree to 1t;
but when they had the making Of the compromise
of 1850, as part and parcel Of it, these two Terri
tories had territorial acts passed for them, which
will speak for themselves, but they were passed
without the prohibition Of the ordinance OF 1877.
Mr. Wigfall. Precisely. Then | want to ask
the Senator, when you come to form new terrific
rial bill as to Kansas and Nebraska, if you not
following out the precedent do not talk about
the principle spoken Of in the great speeches that
were circulated in thousands and hundreds Of
thousands, but If the precedent was not followed
when the Missouri restriction repealed and the
Kansas Nebraska bill was passed, as the Utah and
New Mexico bills were passed, without any pro-
vision either favoring disfavoring slavery p
That is the question.
Mr.. Coamer. The gentleman has made his own
speech, taking his own premises, and drawing his
own conclusions. | can present very different
views. think that that whole compromise must
be taken together.
Mr.. Wigfall. The omaibus was turned over,
and they were passed as separate bills.
Mr.. Collamer They were passed as separate
bills, but they all constituted a compromise, and
are SO spoken Of in the Nebraska act 1t was a
compromise consisting of three or four acts passed
here. That compromise put together made
whole, and insist that it was disntegraton and
destruction of the principle which they went
when you repealed the compromise line which set
tied the condition Of large part Of the territory,
aud which sotsloment entered into and constituted
part OF the very compromise OF 1850.
Mr.. WigGll. With the permission Of the Sena-
tor, will again draw his attention to the fact
that the Utah and New Mexico bills were passed
without any provision either establishing or
prohibiting slavery, and that the Kansas Nebraska
bill, in ordor to DO passed in accordance with that
precedent, must necessarily have repealed the Mis-
souri, restriction, or it would have recognized the
right Of Congress to interpose. Therefore, what
the Senator would call non-interposition. call in
terpositon. What he would call non-ntervention,
| call intervention. As there had previously
passed bill in 1S.0-
Mr.. Collamer The gentleman is making
speech of his own; he has not asked me question.
He is making up his own logic, stating his premis
es, and drawing his conclusions in his own way
say all the parts of that compromise constitute a
whole They should be left to stand together, and
| have already said what considered entered into
and constituted part Of it. Now gentlemen say,
that when they came to pass law making q terri
torial government for Kansas and Nebraska, they
had to pass it like those for which they had pre-
cedent How there any obligation to do thatl
Not the least in the world. If n man has sold
land for ten dollars acre, large tract, and
should afterwards sell similar amount to the
same purchaser for twenty dollars, could he then
tua Anl tha
first - They had made arrangements all about
that line before; the compromise was made on that
basis; and now, when they came to make n terri
toral government, were they obliged to make it on
the Utah act, passed since the line was arranged
was stating the reasons which were attempted
to be given for that repeal. The first, mentioned
here by the Senator from Virginia, was that the
North made it, and that it was an aggression; the
second was that it not extended over other
! Territories, but new bargain made for them the
third was, that it was inconsistent with the CON-
promise Of 1850; and the fourth is, that it was
constitutional all the while. To my mind, this last
is like Jack Fallstaff's, 'I knew you all the
while" 1t is an after-thought, new discovery.
Is il possible that these gentlemen can give that as
an excuse for doing the thing when they did not
explain it or state it at the time they did it
| Again, is il becoming in these people to say,
"We agreed to this proposition; we made this ar
rangement with you in 1870; we have had our
States admitted south of the line, according to it;
We have had the consideration on our part, and
now we turn around on you, and tell you we never
had any authority to make it, and we knew we
had not when we did it; it was great deluson
from beginning 20 end?" The truth is, that, in
common ethics, as well as in law, when man ex-
ercises the power to do thing, he is estopped from
saying he had not the power If man sell me
horse his, he cannot afterwards, after taking his
pay. tell me that the horse belonged to another
man. He has no right to say it; he is estopped
from saying it. So with those who exercised this
power They are not at liberty, in law or in
morality to say that they had not the right to do
it. 1t is totally immateria whether they had or
had not the power. With them, it should be held
sacred; for they did 1t.
! But, Mr.. President, l have been unable to see
what was the difficulty in this compromise line,
making it constitutional. Was it unconstitutional
because it was not long enough Is it possible for
you to say that if it had been extended to the Pa
cifc it would have been good and constitutional
! line Here stands the honorable Senator from
Louisiana; and more ingenious lawyer certain
ly can seldom be found, whatever may have been
said about the Philadelphia lawyers; but he stands
here and puts to me a question implying plainly