Year: 1859

tinue this discussion, which does not bs long to the bill under discussion, whicl does not belong to the bill under consider ation? I know the Senator from Illinois said the committee on finance introduced it. I stated yesterday evening why it wal done. They supposed, upon reflection that it might be thought unjust to the ter ritory, whilst this statute remained. not to give it a chance of showing that they had the requisite number to entitle it to admis sion. The moment we found that another view was taken, we offered, if the unani nous consent of the Senate could be gi- ven, to withdraw the amendment; because, for one, was doubtful about it from the beginning; but I was not allowed to do so, for the purpose, l presume, of getting up this discussion. Surely it has lasted long enough; and hope we shall be permitted to go on with the bill. I do not wish from this to preclude the Senator from answering anything that may be personal to himself; but after that l will appeal to the Senate to let us vote.

 Mir. DOUGLAS. I have but word or two to say in reply to the Senator from California. He has taken it upon himself to say that he does not believe that any Senator voted for the Kansas Nebraska bill on the construction put upon it by me- Mir. GWlN. l said not a member on this floor, now here, voted for it; and call on them to speak for themselves

 in the course of the debate, Senator Da- wis made the following argument:

 MT. DAVIS. Then, as I understand the Senator, if he intended to answer me at all, 1t is that he offers to us the propo- sltlon that the constitutional rights shall be submitted to the supreme court, and now announces that, whatever may be the decision of the supreme court, he will not legislate for the protection of the rights thus guarantied. As he would not an- swer my question, 1 now answer his: 1 have never claimed that the people of territory, if he will so call them, were to leglslate for the benefit of the people in the States; but l have claimed that they have no right so to legslate as to appropriate to themselves the public domain, because they occupy small part of it, and exclude other citizens from coming there to equally enjoy 1t. 1 claim that the foreigners who, under the mad legislation of Congress-, have been invited to seize upon our public do- main, and who have congregated with all their false notions in Utoh, have no right now, by their laws, to exclude a citizen of the United States in that territory. If that territory had been desirable, the ques- tion is one which long since would have been made. Otherwise, l hold that the few Canadians who lived in the State winch the Senator represents, at a very early period, had no right to proclaim themselves the sovereign possessors of the territory, and to exclude the people of the United States from coming to enjoy its fertile plains. A handful of men, nowhere. finding themselves upon the territory of the United States, can have the right to enact such laws as will exclude the joint owners from its equal possession The one hundred and sixty acres of land upon which the emigrant may go, he may hold as his own; and on their one hundred and sixty acres the immigrants may make such rules and regulations and laws as may be needful for their own protection and gov ernment, in the absence of congressional legislation. Clearly, sir, they are limited and restricted to the point of their own ne- cesHity. They have no right to legislate so as to affect the rights of other owners of the territory who are not within its limits

 When Congress, however. organizes a government, then 1 say this whole ques- tion of squattersovereignty passes away. The sovereignty of the State acting through their agent in Congress, then supplants the squatter sovereignty that might have existed without any law Henceforth, le- gislation must not only be in subordinotion | to the constitution, in subordination to the will of Congress, who alone represent the owners of the territory. Congress would make gross departure from every liberal principle if they were to interfere with such people of the territory might require; but the territorial legislature are limited clear | ly by every principle of equity, to such legislation as their own condition requires and have no right so to legislate as to ex- clude other people of the United States and no plea, no attempt to appeal to preiu dice against a particular kind of property will ever make this doctrine stand before the honest men of the United States, bl their personal opinions what they may would go into New England tomorrow and venture before the people, assembled en naasse, this right of the citizens of the United States to go into territory, and save here and there, where some man sought to obtain office upon prejudice, l should expect to get verdict in favor of theil brethren, wherever they might be found Sir, if we had the power to take the terri tories, and to proclaim that no man should enjoy them who did not bring a slave with him, to show what his future political opin. ion would be, 1 trust l have not constitu- ent who would not at once denounce it as a base interference with the equal rights o his brethren of the United States. Then, 1 ask what is the difference if others seize possession,of the territory and say, that nc man holding such property shall be allow. ed to come and enjoy it? The equity is the same.