Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1862-05-14

sir, what | mean to say is this : that never be-
fore having heard this doctrine: never expect
ing to believe 1t, and never expecting any
large portion Of the members Of this house.
or Of the people Of the free states, will believe
It never SuppoSing that any man but one who
Is tender-tootcd upon the subject of slavery.
/ viii ever seek any excuse for voting against
/ this bill. pass by this point without remark
/ ing further upon it. | am very glad to have
! been interrupted by the gentleman from Mas
Sachusctts, for | received some new ideas
upon the subject that it is well enough to
know.
Mr.. THoMAs.-A new idea will certainly be
a benedicton to you. (Laughter.)
Mr.. STEyENs.-Now, sir, this is bill to
/ prohibit slavery everywhere where congress
has exclusive jurisdiction. One class of cases
to which the bill applies is the nayy-yards and
the dock-yardS. Now, sir, there are not usu-
ally many inhabitants in those places who own
slaves, but there are some The officers live
there, and some of them own slaves. 1t will
affect them, of course, but the bill is not in
tended to affect anybody owning slaves who
does not live there. The fugitive slave law
would operate there just as it would operate
in the District of Columbia and in all the ter
ritories. 1t applies to those who hold slaves
in those places, and to nobody else. We are
told that some Of the Territories have been
coded to the United States upon the express
condition that they should make no law liber-
! atlng the slaves within those territories I'm
! doubleday the provisions of that ceSsion ought
TO be respected. 1t would not only be in bad
faith, but, in my judgment, it would void the
! whole If congress refused to comply with the
| conditions, unless they were assented to under
| protest at the time of cession. But, sir. | do
not know of one single spot of territory that
is now in that condition. Every one of those
territories that were affected by that condition
in the grant have passed long ago into sover-
elgn and Independent states. No man | sup
pose will contend that the provisions of the
ceSSon after they became states, bound them
any more than the Wilmot provso, which was
applied to certain territories, would bind
them, after they became states, forever from
establishing slavery within their limits.
Mr. THoMAs-Thc gentleman from Penn
sylYama does not recognize any authority of
mine.
Mr.. STEvENs-Oh, yes, do.
Mr.. THoMAs-Will he allow me. then to
call his attention to the case of Green VS.. Bid
die, reported in Wharton, in which it is de-
termned that the condition attached to the
cession by the state Of Virginia of the terrific
ry constituting the state of Kentucky, attach
ed to the grant after Kentucky became a state?
decision in direct conflict with the doctrine
stated by the gentleman from PENNSYLVANIA.
Mr.. STEVENS am not speaking of the
question Of property. | am speaking Of po-
litcal action, and the gentleman ought bv this
time to have known it. say if the Wilmot
proYiso is applied to a territory as it now APP
plies to the territory of Nebraska, and that ter
ritory were to become a state, would it pro-
hibit the legislature of that state from intro
ducing slavery there?
Mr.. THoMAs-Does the gentleman say that
if Nebraska were erected into a state she
could introduce slavery by her local laws?
MIR. STEVENS say that any independent
government can regulate the subject to suit
itself.
Mr.. THoMAs-Suppose the territory were
now being erected into a state, would she be
capable of establishing slavery within her ter
ritorial limits? | ask the gentleman to an
Swer yes or no.
Mr.. STEvENs-f she formed a constitution
with slavery in it,
Mr.. THoMAs.-That is not an answer to the
question.
Mr.. STEvENs.-I trust the gentleman will
not take up all my time. If she formed a
constitution with slavery in it, came here for
admission into the Union, and her constitution
was accepted, and she admitted under it. say
it would be valid law, and a valid portion of
the constitution. If there is any such thing
as the right of the people of any locality by
their local authorities to establish slavery any
where, she could do it as well as any other
state. And so also could those states formed
Of the territory to which allusion has been
made abolish slavery. Does the gentleman
suppose that the grant of cession of the terri
tories now constituting the states of Tennes-
see and Mississippi would so operate as to
prohibit those states from abolishing slavery
now, or that the condition Of the grant was
such as that they could not abolish slavery
after they became states?
Mr. THoMAs-Certainly not.
Mr.. STEvENs.-The ghost of the sage of
Quincy will turn paler the more he hears of
the doctrines of his successor in this hall |
mean no disrespect to the gentleman from
Massachusetts. [ am only speaking of his
doctrines.
Mr. THoMAs.-The gentleman will allow
me to say that if he means no disrespect his
course is singularly unhappy one. Profess
sions in the presence of facts are not worth
over much. Does the gentleman recollect
the lines of Dryden?
Ills preaching much, but more his practice
wrought
Mr.. STEvENs.-I do not exactly see the ap-
picatiOn Of the gentlemans quotation | do
not either give him my advice or my censure.
Censure Is beyond my jurisdiction, and my
advice would do him no good. daughter 1t
Is Sad tins Is simply a question of good faith.
l agree with the gentleman of Rhode Island
(Mr' Shefheld) that in the case he has reterr-
ed to, we should not abolish slavery in the
terHtory so long as it was territory, but the
moment it became an independent state. and
by virtue of that indepdence the state legislo-
ture granted to the government of the United
States land for public works and exclusive
jurisdiction over that land, then from that mo-
ment no question Of honor or good faith at
taches ask any gentleman to show me in
any one OF these grants where it is not pro-
plded That exclusive jurisdiction shall be CON
lerred upon the United States. | have looked
them all through, and so far as | remember.
IN every grant from the United States. exclu-
sNe jurisdiction over ceded territory is con-
1erred upon the United States. | do not think
lllat there can be any question at this point at
an Ior the jurisdiction, in all cases of grants
by tne states to the federal government, is ex-
clusively confined to the United States.
MIR. SPEAKER have observed that wher-
ever the main principles of u bill are obnox-
lous to gentlemen, they are cunning in seek
ing out small and trivial objections, and
magnitying them and arguing that they are
destructive Of the measure We hear again
and again the objection that there is some
doubt Of the bad faith in passing PROPOSE
ton like this. Now, have we ever promised
that we would not abolish slavery wherever
we had the power? What do you mean by
imthF promise given that we will do or