Newspaper of Bedford Gazette, July 6, 1860, Page 1

Newspaper of Bedford Gazette dated July 6, 1860 Page 1
Text content (automatically generated)

VOL! Mi: 56. NEW SERIES. rgiHIJ BEDFORD GAZETTE, ■ IS PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY MORNING BY B. I MEYERS, A' the following terms, to wit: $1 .90 per annum, CASH, in advance. $2.00 " " if paid within the ypar. V 2..00 " " if not paid within the year, subscription taken for less than six months. QP~NO paper discontinued until all arrearages are paid, unless at the option of the publisher, it has! veil decided by the United States Courts that the stoppage of a newspaper without tne payment ot ar learages, is prima facte evidence ot fraud and is a criminal offence. [CT'The courts have decided that persons are ac countable lor the subscription price of newspapers, if they take them from the post office,whether 'hey I subscribe lor them, or not. j SPEECH OF SENATOR OLINGMAN. OF NORTH CAROLINA, Oil the subject ot (lie proposed doctrine ot* the interven tion to protect Slavery in the Territories. The Senate having under consideration the evolutions offered by Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi —Mr. CLIN'GMAN said : Mr. PRESIDENT : Most of the speech of the Se nator from Miss. (Mr. Davis,) 1 cordially approve. There are one or two points however, in which f differ with him; and, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, if Senators will indulge me, I shall endeavor to state them. It I under stand his resolutions aright, they contemplate intervention by Congress for ttie protection, in the Territories, of property in slaves. For some years past, we have stood on the docrine of non-intervention, and there is uo middle ground which we can take. The Senator from Mississippi says that he does not approve of a slave code. Well, sir, wfiat tore we to uudersiand by a slave code I I take it to be a legislation to protect, or to regulate property in slaves. If yo* depart from the principle of non-intervention, and legislate to protect property in slaves, you necessarily make some sort of a slave code, and it may be either a short one or a long one. I am opposed to imparting, at this time, from the policy of non-intervention. I was not one of the original advocates of that measure. On the contrary, twelve or fifteen years ago, in common with the great body of the South, I ma in I aiiied the opinion that the Federal Gov ernment had complete jurisdiction over the Ter ritories , and I voted for the of the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific. That necessarily implied two things ; first, that Con gress had power to prohibit slavery in the ter ■ .lutlOi , k.wml, •.< i. j.Ju puu*. . IU esiaOllSh or protect it ; because the original Missouri compromise line declared, in the exact terms of the Wiimot proviso, that north ol the line of .16 deg. 30 mm. slavery or involuntary servi tude never should exist, while it was allowed to remain south of it. Every one of us who voted lor the extension ol that line thereby ne cessarily admit\ed that this Government had au thority to establish or protect the Constitution ; and if we had denied the power, we could not have given the vote. lam free to say, that I, subsequently changed mv opinion ; and prior to the decision in the Dred Scott case I published rtiy views in accordance with the doctrine laid down in that decision, as I understand it. Tnat however, is merely personal to myself, and can not affect the Senate. But, sir, in 181-7, General Cass brought for ward the non-intervention doctrine. He was sustained bv Daniel S. Dickinson and by John C. Calhoun, and other distinguished statesmen ; and though I was then an opponent of it, I am free to say that I believe its advocates were perhaps nearer right than 1 was. So remarka ble was the statement ol Mr. Calhoun at that time that f shall ask the indulgence of the Sen ile lor a single moment while f read a few ex 11acts Irom his speech. Some of his remarks were almost prophetic, and anything from him has great weight with gentlemen of the school tu which the Senator from Mississippi aod my • ell belong. In his opening remarks in his .•peech of June 27th, 1848, he said : "There is a very striking difference between the position in which the slaveh olding and non-slave holding States stand in reference to the subject un der consideration- The former desire no action of the Government; demand no lew to give them any advantage in the Territory about to be establ isbed ; are willing to leave it, and other Territories belon ging to the United States, open to all their citizens, so long as they continue to be Territories, a nd when they cease te be so, to leave it to their mh abitants to lorrn such governments as may suit them, with out restriction or condition, except that imposed by the Constitution as a pre-requisite for admission into the Union. In short, they are willin gto leave the whole subject where the Constitutiou and the great and fundamental principles of self-government place it." What further did he say ? " Nor should the North fear that, by leaving it where justice and the Constitution leave it, sbe would be excluded from her full "hare of the Terri tories. In my opinion, if it be left there, climate, soil, and other circumstances, would fix the line between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding Slates in about 36 deg. 30 min. It may zig-zag a little, to accomodate itself to circumstances ; some times passing to the north and at others to the south of it; but that would matter little, and would be more satisfactory to all, and tend less to alienation betwucn the two great sections than a rigid, straight, artificial line, prescribed by an act of Con gress*" "Eut I go further, and hold that justice and the Constitution are the easiest and safest guard on which the question can be settled, regarded in ref erence to party. It may be settled on that ground simply by non-action—by leaving the Territories free and open to the emigration of all the world, so long as they continue so ; and when they become States, to adopt whatever constitutiou they please, with the single restriction to be republican, in or dei to their admission into the Union. II a party "..not - afely take this broad and solid position, and maintain it, what other can it take and tnain trr. ?" Remember this was an earnest exhortation to the Democratic party, prior to the assemblage ol its national convention in that year. •'lf st cannot maintain itself by an appeal to the Mr. GREENE. I wish to correct the Sen great principles of justice, the Constitution, anil sell-government, to what other, sufficiently strong ' ? uphold them 111 public opinion, can they 1 appeal I i greatly mistake the character of the people of this In ion, if such an appeal would not prove successful it either party should have the magnimity to step forward and boldly make it. It would, in my o pinion, be received with shouts of approbation by the patriotic and intelligent in every quarter.— There is a deep feeling pervading the country that the Union and our political institutions are in dan ger, which such a course would dispel."— Appendix to Congressional Glo/.e, fifst session Thirtieth Con gress, p. 892. That position was taken by him and others, and maintained, and gradually obtained strength until, in 1850, it received a majority of the votes ot the southern members and of the Dem ocratic party, and became a part of the public law ot the country. I hold, sir, that this was emphatically a compromise between the sec tions ; and I propose now to give several rea sons why I am for maintaining it, although at the time it was adopted I was opposed to it. I place this view in the foreground; northern gen tlemen. be it recollected, insisted on the Wiimot proviso, to prohibit slavery in the Territories, and we of the South claimed protection. When the Wiimot proviso was brought up, there were only seven or eight Democrats in the House of Representatives who resisted it. Among them j I recollect the Senator fiom Illinois (Mr. Dou -1 GLA-S) and his colleague at that time, who is now a member of the other House, and who was voted for at an early day of the session for Spea ker, (Mr. MCCLERNAND.) Excepting those gentleman, I believe, there is no one else now in the public councils from the North who op posed it. Many men of the North said, "if we are to legislate, to fixthe status of the Ter ritories, as we represent free communities, we will carry out their views ; but it you think proper to turn over the whole question to the people, under the Constitution, we will join you in that, and vote down the Wiimot proviso." That was subsequently accomplished; and in 1852, when the national conventions adopted it, it became the settled policy of the country and those in the South who had opposed it, ac quiesced and adopted it. Now Mr. President, the Senator from Missis sippi argues that the policy of non-intervention did not mean to deny the right to protect; that it merely pledged Congress not to establish or to prohibit slavery, but did not deny protection to it. I might, by adverting to the discussions of that day, 6how that a different construction was then put upon it by gentlemen generally ; but I have some authority here which binds the whole party to which ttiat Senator and myself baiong, and which, I think, ought to be conclu sive—l mean the last clause of the thirtv-spc utia section ot the Kansas-iVPbraska bill, whicn the Administration of that day, ot which he , was a member, made an Administration mea sure, and wbicii received the support of the Democratic members of the two houses ; and I ask the particular attention of the Senate to the j language: "That the Constitution, and all the iaws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the sifme force and etlect within the said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act prepar atory to the admission of Missouri into the Union approved March the 7th, 1820, which, being incon sistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories as recognized bv the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void ; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, hut to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." The Missouri line was repealed ; and why ? Because it was unconstitutional or wrong in it self ? No, sir ; but because it was "inconsis tent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Slates and Terri tories." I admit, if Ihe act had stopped there, there might have been some plausibility in the argu ment, but what is the conclusion ? "PKOVIUFD, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of 6th March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolish ing slavery." That is, Congress would not only not inter fere itself; would not only not allow its own statutes to stand in the way, but would not re vive any old law which might have been in force by which slavery was protected in that Territoiy. Is it not perfectly clear that the whole purpose of the act, and of the oarty at that day, was to free Congress from all legisla tion over the subject of slavery in the Territo ries, whether byway of protection, or estab lishment, or prohibition, and leave the Territo ry free to act, as the Constitution permitted it ? I remember well how that clause came to be inserted in the bill. During the discussion, it was said, by gentlemen who opposed the bill, that if Congress simply repealed the restriction, the result would he that the old Louisiaana law, establishing and protecting slavery, would be revived. To meet that argument this clause was introduced, became a part of the bill, and received the support of every friend of the bill who voted for it in both Houses of Congress. I submit, therefore, that, upon a fair construc tion of that act, you can come to no other con ciusion except that Congress intended to abne gate the exercise of any power over this ques tion in the Territories, and to deny its purpose to legislate, whether to establish or probioit, or to restrict or protect slavery in the Territories; and in J 856, in our platform, we expressly de clared the doctrine of "non-intervention with slavery in State or Territory, and in the Dis trict of Columbia." Where did that leave it I Congress left it, of course, in the States, to the States; in the Territories—there being no law of Congress left, for that repeal removed the last act of Congress which bore upon them—it left it unaffected in any way by congressional legislation; and in the District of Columbia slavery had already been established, and was protected by law, so that it left it there un- BEDFORD, PA, FRIDAY MORNING, JUNE 6, 1860. I touched. I say this declaration received the unanimous assent of all the States represented in the Cincinnati convention. I happened to be a member of that convention —the only ; convention of the kind which I believe I ever I had the honor of being in ; and I may have a little personil pride in that matter; but lam very sure 1 am not mistaken when I say it was unanimously adopted by all the delegates there assembled, alike from the North and the South. We also, out of abundance of caution to meet the views of our opponents, voted that every new State should be admitted with or without slavery, as it pleased. Then, Mr. President, where do >ve stand? The Democracy of trie North and the South a greed upon this principle of non-intervention. If there ever was a compromise made under this Government, that was one. Eeach side sur rendered something. We surrendered our claim to protection ; our northern friends aban doned the Wifmot proviso, and everything look ing to it, and met lis on common ground. Though I was not an original party to the a greement, I am bound to it bv mv acquiescence; and I hold that neither section can honorably depart from it without some great pressing ne cessity, which does not now exist. I know it is said that the Dred Scott decision has modified the question. I contess I do not think so. I fully agree to the decision in the sense in which the Senator from Mississippi ex explains it ; but let us test it for a moment in this way ; in that decision the court say the Missouri compromise line, or the Wiimot pro viso, is unconstitutional. Granted ; but sup pose the\* had decided the other way, and said it wasj constitutional, would the northern men have had a right to come forward and say, "this question being settled in our favor, the Su preme Court having admitted that the Wifmot proviso is constitufional, we now want to go in for intervention against siavery ? lam sure every Democrat in the South would have said at once; ''though you have this power, yoirare not bound to exercise it." Well, suppose the court decided that Congress have the right to protect, and not to prohibit, can we honorably and fairly, without a great pressing necessity, abandon the policy of non-intervention? I think not. Now, is there any such necessity ? The Sen ator himsell admits that theie is not. His col league (Mr. BROWN) insists that we ought to have a slave code or congressional legislation i on the subject : but the Senator from Mississippi to whom lam replying, says that there is no such necessity at this time. Then why depart from the principle ot non-intervention? lam free to admit that if, in an unwise moment, • .uu U inatn u vuiupiorTiise iuai isrni-fintis 10 mm, ! he may, under great necessity, avoid it, perhaps; | but I deny that any such necessity exists in this case; and the highest evidence ol it is lhatthe Senator from Mississippi, who sits behind me, (Mr. BROWN,) has been striving for the last three or four months to get a positive act passed to J protect slavery in Kansas, and he has never yet found a second for it. If any one Senator upon | this floor, notwithstanding the urgent and elo quent appeals of that gentleman, has declared his willingness to vote for it, 1 have not heard | him say so, and I do not believe there is such a ' one. And yet everybody knows that Kansas | has lately refused all protection to slave prop j erty. If gentlemen, therefore, intend to stand up for all their rights to the fullest extent, why : not at once come up and pass a law to protect I slaves in Kansas ? They show, by their con- I duct, that they do not believe that any real ne ; cessity exists in fact for depaitiug 1 from non ! intervention. I say, then, Mr. President, that in my judg ment no necessity exists for an abandonment of the compromise; but the Senator proposes to make a declaration that we shall do it in a fu ture contingency. I have no doubt of the pow er of the Government, but why make that dec laration ? A declaration of the Senate binds nobody. These are naked resolutions ; they are not laws ; they carry no force to the coun try except what may be derived from the sound ness of the opinions aJvanced in them. They will not control the action ot the courts. They will not, perhaps, change the opinion of a sin gle man in this country. Why pass them? I think I shall show, before 1 take my seat, some very valid and strong reasons whv we should not do so. My first objection, then, is, that the system of non-iotervention is a compromise, and that no necessity exists to abandon it, as I have al ready stated. I come now to my second objec tion. During the discussion of 1850, the advo cates of non-intervention said, it you adopt it, if you leave the question to the Territorial Le gislature, they may pass laws to protect slave property. I resisted it. I made speech after speech to show that the Mexicans were hostile to us ; that they were not accustomed to slave ry, and might legislate against it but what has been the result l New Mexico has passed the most stringent slave code. There is, perhaps, not a State in the Union has, by law, pro tected slave property more securely than the Territory of New Mexico, which reaches from Texas to the Gulf of Calalbrnia, and extends up to the thirty-eight degree of north latitude. We were content with the line of 36 deg. 30 min. we were willing to run the Missouri line to the Pacific, and abolish slavery absolutely north of 36 deg. 30 min. and take a mere im plication without an express protection south of it. Sir, practically by non-intervention, we have got more than we asked for ; we have got a larger amount of territory than we should have obtained under the Missouri compromise line. Gentlemen may say, perhaps, that Kan sas has legislated against us. I grant it ; but we should not have got Kansas at all under the Missouri compromise. Kansas onlj comes down to the thirty-seventh parallel, the whole Territory being north of the Missouri compro mise line. Besides, while New Mexico has le gislated in our favor, and the same thing, I be lieve, is true of Utah Freedom of Thought and Opinion. ator in a matter of fact. Utah has not passed any Jaw protecting slavery. They have an ap prentice system, which expires in a very short time. Nr. GLIXGMAN. lam obliged to the gen tleman for the suggestion ; but I consider the I fact with reference to Utah immaterial, be cause it lies on a table land several thousand feet above the sea, very far north, reaching up to the lorty-second parallel, and having a very cold-climate. Surely, the Senator does not de ny the fact that, as far as New Mexico is con cerned, we have got everything we desire, and that it covers more territory than we claimed in 1850. I was about to say, though, that e ven in Kausas slave property was protected by the Territorial Legislature for several years, but lately ttrey have legislated against it. I be lieve that, but for the extraordinary excitement which grew up out of the repeal of the Missou ri restriction, the Territory of Kansas never would have legislated adversely to us, but we all know that a great crowd were sent in there from the North, with extreme anti-slavery views, and the result of the excitement there has been legislation against us ; but we are 110 worse off in that respect than if we had never repealed the restriction, and we are much better otf as far as the Territory of New Mexico is concerned, by adopting non-intervention. Mr. GRI I 'ENDEN. Will the gentleman give way to a motion to adjourn. Mr. CLINGMAN. As it is late, if there is no objection to the question going over until to morrow, it will be more agreeable tome. Mr. CRI IT EN DEN. I move that the Sen ate adjourn. The motion was agreed to and the Senate ad journed. TUESDAY, MAY S, IS6O. *•***••*•* I yesterday alluded to the opinions of Mr. Calhoun. It is perhaps right that I should say, in the very same speech from which I read, he expressed the opinion that a Territorial Legisla ture hah no right to exclude slavery, or to legislate against it. I concur with him in that. He also, I think almost uniformly, perhaps in variably, held that Congress had a right and ought to protect all property in the Territories subject to its jurisdiction ; but he waived that right in his speech, to which I referred, and in his support of the Clayton compromise bdl, which passed at the same session of Congress, and only a few weeks aterwards, he again'wai ved it. By the provisions of that bill, Con gress did not legislate at all in relation to sla very in the Territories, but transferred the sub ject to the Territorial Legislature, with an in . (hat ihnul'l power to abolish or establish slavery—those were the terms—but saying nothing as to how far they might legislate. It turned over the whole sub ject to them, and let them to legislate, subject, of course, to the control of the courts. That was the prominent idea of that bill. .Now, sir, one other remark 111 connection with the first point which I made. During the discussion of 1850, 1 insisted that if the gentle men would come forward and repeal the restriction, and throw open all the territority, I would agree to take it ; and in fact, in a speech in the House of Representatives, I a greed to vote for this principle if they would remove the reati iction up to the fortieth paral lel, from 36 d. 30 m. considering that sufficient compensation. It was not done, however, and I opposed the scheme. But, in 1554-, the northern portion of the Democratic party, with ! great magnanimity and with great risk to themselves, came up and repealed this old re striction. In doing that they had to encoun ter prejudices at home ; they had to take upon their shoulders the responsibility of repealing a line which had been regarded as sanctified by thirt-four years' existence, and which was called a compromise. They had the manli ness, in carrying out this principle of non-in tervention, to come forward and repeal that line. Why? It was in order that all the territory might be placed upon the same foot ing ; and I hold l hat after that sacrifice upon their part ; that willingness to carry out this compromise, begun in 1850, indorsed in 1852, by the Democratic and also by the Opposition convention, we of the South are under the high est obligation to stand to it. Now, sir, I make no reflection on any honorable Senator who who diflers from me on this question. I do them all the justice to say that, it they looked upon it as I do, as a compromise, I am very sure they would not seek to disturb it. Ta king the view of it I do, believing that the two parties settled down upon non-intervention, I feel it to be my duty to adhere to it in the ab sence of any great pressing necessity which would {justify its abandonment. Mr. President, what are the points of differ ence between the two parties ? The Senator from Mississippi, if I read his resolution aright, does not propose to favor intervention by Con gress to protect slavery in the Territories at this time, but he declares if it should turn out hereafter that the existing Jaws are not suffi cient to protect it nnder the Constitution, he is 'hen for legislation. What do those who op pose his resolution say ? The Senator from Ohio {Mr. PUGH) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. DOUGLAS) say that if, hereafter, the courts shall make decisions which cannot be carried out without legislation, they will legislate to carry them out. The Senator from Mississippi says that the Dred Scott decision has settled the question, and he wants a declaration that we mean to legislate in future. These gentlemen, admitting, as they must, that the judges have, in the Dred Scott case, expressed their opinion that a Territorial Legislature cannot legislate adversely to slavery, say, however, that point in fact was not presented in the case ; but that, if such was the settled opinion of the court, when a proper case is directly presented it will so decide ; and they stand ready to carry out that decision of the court when it shall be made. Then, do we not all come together on the same point ? The Senator from Mississippi says that if the courts make decisions which cannot be enforced without legislation, he is for legislation. These gentlemen sav that when ttie court does make decisions, they will submit to them and cariy them out. It seems, theretore, that they are traveling in lines that will converge and come together at a certain point. Then, why dispute now in advance ? This may be readily illustrated. Suppose I have a controversy with a neighbor about the title to a piece of land. Neither of us is in a nurry to have possession. We are willing to await the decision of the court. He comes to me, however, and says : '-I find that the court, in expressing an opinion in another case, which I admit is not like ours, and does not present the same facts, has declared, nevertheless, that in a case like yours and mine my title would be goog, and theretore I wish you to give ine a deed acknowledging my title to be good, though Ido not want possession now, end am willin* to wait for it until the case decided." I replv to him, "I admit that the court may have ex pressed such an opinion, but the point between us did not arise in that case, was not argued by my counsel or any other counsel ; all I can say to you is, if that be the opinion of the court, of course, when they decide our case, they will decide in yoer favor, and I shail then surren der to you ; but I am not willing to assume beforehand that the court will so decide." It seems to me, then, Air. President, that in the present condition of the case there is no neces sity for ill-feeling 011 either side, or for declara tions in advance. My second point was, that New Mexico had already established a slave code and given us more territory than we should have gotten un der the Missouri line, it carried out. I come now to the third point, and that is, what has grown out of the decision of the court in the Dred Scott case. When this subject was un der debate in 1850. we of the South objected to non-intervention on the ground that it wouki leave the Mexican law in force ; and inao rnuch as the Supreme Court had maintained the opinion in a case from Florida, and per haps in some other decisions, that where territo ry was acquired the local law might remain in force, we were disinclined to tako non-in tervention without a repeal of the Mexican law. During the interesting controversy, we a caucus of southern members, consisting ol Senators ami Representatives, and on that occa sion the Senator from Georgia, who usually siti behind me, (Air. TOOMBS,) introduced a proposi tion into our caucus that we would support th< compromise measures if they would repeal lh< Mexican laws and substitute the British colo mat Jaws whtfh prevailed la our colonies prlu: to the Revolution. That was adopted, ant that gentleman moved it in the House o Representatives as an amendment, but it wa defeated. lam free to say that if at that fin* we had been satisfied that the court would hoh that under the Constitution slave propert; could exist and be protected in the territories without reference to local laws, I am ven sure we should all have voted for the compro miseof 1850. If it be true, as the Senator from Mississippi contends, that the Dred Scott decision settles the question and supports the right of slavehol der in a territory, then there is another strong reason why we should acquiesce in non-inter vention at this time. This, therefore, is a third reason ;and I now propose to give one or two others why a person like myself, who origi nally did not adopt it, may now be for it. It has been adopted as the policy of the coun try for ten years. Can we now pass through resolutions or bills to establish or protect slavery iu the territories ? That is the question. Re collect, it is only in a case where the people of a territory are hostile to our rights ; it is only where they are so hostile that they refuse to protect UP, or even legislate against us that we have been called upon to exercise this power. Nobody pretends that there is any necessitj' for our going into New Mexico, or other territories that are favorable to us, with this legislation.— Therefore, the question presented is simply this : suppose a territory is hostile to us, and its Legislature will not protect slave property, or even legislate against il, will Congress inter vene? First, is there any political possibility that we can pass such a law through the two Houses? We have had a test on the question already. Here is the territory of Kansas, which not only does not give us any protec tion, but which, lam informed has legislated adversely. One Senator from Mississippi (Mr. BROWN) has brought forward a proposition to interfere for the protection of slavery in that Territory, and yet he has not got one southern man to break him ; and if you were to submit the question to a body of southern Senators I have very great doubt whether you would get them to agree to such legislation. Why is it ? If we of the South are willing to impose the institution—that is the common phrase—on a territory against the wish of a majority, why is it that gentlemen do not come up and support the proposition of the Senator from Mississippi ? Is it because that it is politically and morally wrong to interfere in tnis way ? Is that it, or is il because gentlemen know that such legisla tion would be unavailing ? I ask why we have not induced southern Senators yet come up and vote for the establishment or protection of slavery in Kansas, notwithstanding the adverse legislation ol the territorial authorities I leave every gentleman to give his own reasons. But suppose every southern Senator went for it, we could pass it; and how many norther men are there who are ready to vote for it ? How many northern members aie there in the other House for it ? It will take thirty northern Re presentatives to pass through such a bill. We all know what a clamor was raised two or three years ago by the Abolitionists—falsely raised—when it was alleged that Congress in tended to force slavery upon the territory of Kansas, whether it wished it or not. Now, if I we undertake to protect or maintain slavery WHOLE UdDER, 2009. in a territory against the wish of the inhabit ants, I ask you how northern men are likely to' sustain us in it ? At present we have no south ern men for it that I know of except one. There may be others; but they have not thought proper alter a debate of three months, to state the fact. But suppose they come up aod do it how many men will you get from the North ? I hold that it is a political impossibility that we should pass such ar measure ; and, as I shall pre sently endeavor to show, nothing but mischief will result from the attempt. But suppose lhere were nothing in this fourth objection of mine, and that Congress should ac tually pass a law ot that sort, how much would it be wortn in a Territory where the people are thoroughly adverse to it and unwilling that the institution should exist or be protected. If you are going to enforce the law, you must send ei ther an army, or an immense number of officials and scatter them all over tlie Territory. Gen tlemen know how difficult it is to recover a runaway negro from the free States. From some ot these States you can only get him bv the help of an army. It was stated the other day, in a speech by a member of the Republican party, who, I suppose, knows—l mean IVIr. RxYMONd, who was once Lieutenant Governor of New Yoik—that of the runaways who went to the North, not one in five hundred ever was recovered , and yet it rs much easier to send a posse or a body of troops there to get a single negro at one point and return him, than it would be to support an army and protect it over a whole 1 eiritory. But, nevertheless, suppose you could maintain it there, what then ? Ev erybody on our side of the House admits that when such a people made a State constitution they would make it anti-slavery ? Any com munity on earth who had forced upon them a system to which they were adverse would in evitably throw it off when they could. What would be the result T Every State brought in to the Union under these circumstances would 1 not only be a free State, but would probably be abohtionized ; probably strong anft-slavery fea tures would be thrown into its constitution What advantage is that to u% of the South, I ask gentlemen? We would like to have slave States; they would give us additional strength in the two houses of Congress ; but slave Terri tories are worth nothing to us—they give us no strength. We should Bke to have slave Terri tories that might be formed ;into slave States ; but if we can only give them under a system which is almost sure to make them germinate into frep and hostile States, they are ot no ad vantage to us. I have now, Mr. President, given some five' reasons why, in my judgment, even if non-in h-iventro-i had not bprn right originally, it would be the true policy now ; but gentlemen say, if it is our right to have protection, let us insist upon it. I take it for granted that every man believes he has rights which he cannot in sist on at all tunes. Ifo man will insist on an abstract, remote sort of right which he can turn to no practical advantage, and thereby merely incur very great losses. It a man believed that he had a certain valuable property in the moon nobody would expect him to attempt to get at it there, either by baloons or otherwise. Ev erybody would regard it as impossibility, and any expenditure of time and money that he made to effect it would be regarded as thrown away. lam free to say that, in my jdgment, there is about as much probability of effecting a thing of that sort as there is of getting through Congress and maintaining a system of legislation to protect slavery in Territories that are so utterly hostile to it that they make their Legislature act against 'it, and then to bring them in as slaveholding States. One is a politi cal, the other a pysical impossibility. I thibk we shall lose by the operation ; and this brings me to another class of objections. If we take this system of congressional in vention for the protection of slavery, we must act in opposstion to the settled policy of the Democratic party for the last ten years. Then you necessarily divide the party. The move ment will not divide our opponents ; they will all stand as they now do, firmly united against us;,.but we shall divide our own party in to two sections, and I beg leave to call the atten tion of Senators to the fact that, on looking over the resolutions adopted in the Democratic con ventions of the free States—and I have examin ed all of them but one—every single one of them, as far as I know or believe, has declared in favor ol the Cincinnati platform, and non-in tervention. So have many of the southern States likewise. Jf we adopt a different policy all these gentlemen must change their ground at once, or be driven out of the party. I ask you, Mr. President, can they maintain them selves before their opponents under this dis advantage ? Suppose, for example, the delega tion from Pennsylvania go home from a con vention where the policy of intervention has been adopted : bow will their opponents meet them ? Their Republican opponents will say to them : you have all been fighting for ten years upon the principle of non-intervention and at your State Convention last March, you passed resolutions, without division, unanimous ly declaring that Congress had no power to le gislate on the subject of slavery in the Territo ries ; and that it wonld not be expedient for them to exercise it, if they had it ; you went to the national convention, and the slave power have imposed on you an intervention plank—a plank by which 30U will have to legislate sla very into and maintain it in the Territories." They will call it, of course, a slave code. Will our friends be able to maintain themselves advantageously under these circumstance"? I put it to the common sense of everybody if that can be expected. 1 will not say, as a southern gentleman said to me the other day, who was in favor of a southern candidate at Charleston, that if the angel Gabriel was put upon a slave code plank he would be defeated all through the North. I do not know anything about what sort of a run angels would make , but I am clearly of the opinion that it would weaken VOL. a NO. 49.

Other pages from this issue: