Gazette and sentinel., 1860-09-22

~ NNsaA -
Legislature prior to the formation Of a State Con
had the power to CXclGd2 slave property
from the common Territory Of the Union.
Never,
No authentic ultcrancc of mind can be found
that substantiatcs the charge. | will just read to
you an article which | never saw until to-day
an irresponsible statement never seen and never
revised by me. | will show you just my Ut
Here | would appeal to the reporters. | have
suffered u good deal in my time by incorrect It.
ports. | dOa't know but it would b. we'll for us
out West TO adopt the habit of gentlemen i'll the
East, and write out beforehand the speeches We
make.
| never do it; l speak as | feel moved. |
would say to the reporters here that ! trust they
will give me an opportunity to revise what they
may pat dOWn-nOt that | doubt their fidelity or
capacity, but it very frequently happens in the
warmth Of debate, one substitutes n word when be
would choose another. or the reporter may not
exactly catch or understand the meaning attempt
ed TO be conveyed. 1t is wonderful this does not
more frequently occur.
| am going to dctain yOu as briefly As may be,
by an exposition of the attitude of parties at the
time the Kansas bill was passed.
In 1851 We removed the restriction of the Mis-
souri, line. We passed the kausasNCbraska bill
through both Houses of Congress. Ii became a
law. The friends OF the measure North and South
agreed that the Missouri Compromise should he
removed. The friends of the measure agreed that
these territories should be opened to settlement.
But there was one point upon which the friends of
the bill diff red. The Southern friends Of the
measure and Il few Of the Northern friends Of the
measure denied the powcr. either Of Congress or
the Territorial Legislature to exclude any de
scription of property pending the territorial con-
ditiOn. Others, including Mr.. Douglas and Mr.
Cas-, believed the Territorial Legislature would
have the power to exclude slave property during
the territorial condition. That was a %constitu-
.tional question, and we agreed 10y the measure
not TO make il & matter of legislative dispute. 1t
was a constitutional question. and all parties were
agreed to make II provision in the bill refer
ring it TO the Supreme Court, and all parties
were to be bound by the decision Of the Supreme
Court on this constitutional question. Let me
prove that was the agreement. Ordinarily an
appeal can be taken from a Territorial Court To
the Supreme Court. when the matter in cOntrO-
versy amounts to a thousand dollars. But in this
there was a provision inserted in the Kansas bill,
that every question relating TO the right OF a slave
TO freedom, OF on habeas corpus, might be taken
up by an appeal without reference to the amount
in controversy.
This Was done to afford the earliest opportunity
for the Supreme Court to decide the only ques-
llOl DcNNGtn tlt AIltu4- u Az hdI9d' -NCDldSAo
bill.
Now, during the period between the passage Of
that bill and the decision ofthe Supreme Court, Of
course ali persons on each side entertained their
own o]piniOTs. We Of the South held that the
Territorial Legislature did not have the power
Mr.. Douglas aud his friends held that the Terrific
rial Legislature did have the power. But. as We
had suspended that question. and referred it by
the bill to the Supreme Court of the United State:
to determine the constitutional question. there
was Il conakon form of expression, which We could
all adopt. and which We did adopt during the
inter reyauIa, if / may so term it, to-wit: That
the people should form and regulate their domes
tic Institutions in their own way subject only tC
thc Constitution of the United States What
limitations the Constitution of the United State,
would impose upon the power Of territorial au
thorities, was the very point we referred by thu
bill to the Supreme Court, with the understanding
at the time. when a case was decided, every mar
belonging TO any party should a~cquiescc in, anJ
bow to the decision. | think that is a pretty
plain statement on that point. | make it for tn
purpose of showing TO you that was the view Ia
ken By the Southern friends Of the bill in Con
gress, and certainly the view taken by your hum
! bic speaker.
| | will take the liberty of reading from a speecl
| made in the House OF Representatives in Con
gress in the year 1854:
I'VE demand that all the citizens Of the United
States be allowed to enter the common terrific
ries, with the Constitution alone in their hands
If that instrument protects the title of the maste
to his slave in this common territory, you cannot
complain if it does not protect his title, we asl
no help from Congress; and the relations of th,
Constitution 10 the subject we are willing to hav,
decided by the courts of the United States
And again l say:
| 4. Il. =, ,,,,,.l.I 90, ona kanI ,,1aD Tho iIoa n
the equality of the States under the Constitution
and their common property in the territories, tina
the citizens Of the siavehoiding States may re
move to them with their slaves, (and that th,
local Legislature cannot rightfully exclude fla
very while in the territorial condition but it i
conceded that the people may establish or pro
hihit it when they come to exercise the power o
a sovereign State.) On the other hand, it is sal,
that slavery, being in ~derogation Of IN RICH
can only exist by force of positive law and it i
denied that the Constitution furnishes this Law
for the territories; and it is further claimed tina
the local Legislature may establish or exclude
at any time after government is organized. A
both parties appeal to the Constitution, and bas
their respective arguments on opposite %construc
tiOns of that instrument, the bill wisely refuses t
make a question for judicial construction the sub
ject Of legislative conflict, ard properly refers 1t t
the tribunal created by the Constitution itself, 70
the very purpose of deciding all cases of law am
equality arising under it"
There was a distinct assertion Of the principle
that the territories were acquired by the common
treasure, and that they belonged to the citizens Q
all the States, for enjoyment and use during tn
territorial condition. | think that is ~suficien
proof that at the period of the passage of the Kan
sas Nebraska bill / did not hold the doctrine tina
a Territorial Legislature could drive Southern
property out of the territory during its t%erritOria
condition.
| am now upon m own personal vindicatlor
The doctrines announced by me in that speec
werejust such as | have ever declared in the con
monwealth of Kentucky, just the same az hav
announced in Indiana, Ohio, Michigan and Penn