greater than those possessed by the creator. This class was represented by Mr. Brown, of Mississippi.

3. Those who, whether denying or admitting the power of Congress to legislate for the admission, extension, or prohibition of slavery in the territories, claimed for the people of the territories the power and the right, acting through their Legislatures, to admit or exclude, protect or prohibit African slavery. Of this class was Messrs. Cass, Douglas, and, as was understood, all the Northern supporters of the bill, Mr. Badger, and other Whigs from the South. Messrs Butler and Hunter, from whose speeches quotations are given below, both denied the power of Congress or the Territorial Legislature to prohibit slavery, but both conceded that the bill did give, and that it was intended to give, that power, should its exercise be consistent with the Constitution of the United States. Congress by the act did not withhold or deny the power; on the contrary, these gentlemen as well as all other supporters of the bill who made speeches, conceded that unless the legislation was unconstitutional, it was the intent and effect of the bill to grant, recognize and admit the right of the Legislature to exclude or admit slavery.

MR. WELLER, OF CALIFORNIA.

But, sir, if this be a question between slavery and freedom, then the friends of this measure hold the freedom side of the question. We propose that the people, the original source of all power, those who spoke this government into existence, and whose agents we are, shall be allowed to decide for themselves what local institutions shall exist among them. On the other hand the opponents of the measure advocate slavery. They contend that the American people shall not exercise this right; that their minds shall be enslaved, that their hands shall be tied up, and they prevented from a free decision whether slavery shall exist there or not. We occupy the broad ground of freedom. We have an abiding confidence in the honesty and in the intelligence of the people. We are not afraid to trust them with the decision of this question. How stands it with you? I had supposed that you were the agents and the representatives of the people, but it seems that the servant has become wiser than the master. You who are invested with political power are claiming now that you are better judges of what sort of government the people should have than the people themselves. Is this so? Is there that vast amount of intelligence and of patriotism in the American Congress which makes us far better judges of what the people should have than the people themselves? Our whole system is based upon the principle that man is capable of selfgovernment. The moment you violate this principle, that moment you transcend your authority and destroy the vital element of the republic.

We propose that this (slavery), like all other questions, shall be left to the free decision of the people. The opponents of the measure concede to

the people the right, when they form a State constitution, to decide for themselves whether slavery shall exist or not; but in the mean time, while it is a territory, they say slavery ought to be excluded. This is like tying a man's hands and legs, and telling him to go where he pleases.

FROM THE SAME SPEECH OF MR. WELLER.

One of these senators from Ohio (Mr. Wade) went so far as to utter this sentiment:

"Sir, in the days of the revolution Major Andre was hung by the neck until he was dead for accepting a proposition not more base than this, which is a gross betrayal of the rights of the whole North."

What an Egyptian darkness must have pervaded the mind of that Senator before he could have arrived at that conclusion! What sad ravages the foul spirit of fanaticism must have made upon his heart before he could have uttered that sentiment! The simple proposition to leave the people of Kansas and Nebraska free and untrammeled to decide on all their local institutions for themselves is, in his judgment, a more dishonorable proposition than that for which Major Andre was hung! I pray that God may enlighten the benighted mind of that senator and soften his heart, and that ere long he will be restored to a proper degree of judgment and reason-I had almost said decency.

MR. TOUCEY, OF CONNECTICUT.

Sir, I find no difficulty with regard to the territorial governments which we have had. They are assented to by the people who live under them, are adopted by the people, and put in operation by the people; and when the assent of the people and the assent of Congress both combine to uphold a government de facto, that government is in the possession of power, and it would be very difficult to question its practical validity. And as the people participate in territorial legislation, and, in fact, the laws originate with them, are proposed and adopted by them, these laws have not only the presumed assent of the people, but their express assent also; and having the implied sanction of Congress, if they are consistent with the Constitution, there seems to be no element wanting to render them effective to all intents and purposes whatsoever. But I mean to say that in the exercise of the power over the territories, acquired by the treaty-making power, you are bound to exercise that power in conformity with the principles of the Constitution; and if you do otherwise, although the law may not reach it, and courts of justice may not reach it, yet you are acting unconstitutionally; and if we knowingly and willingly violate the principles of government in exercising the necessary power that arises from the acquisition of territory, we violate the obligation that is upon us to support the Constitution. When, therefore, this principle of non-interference applies to all the states-applies to every state that has come or will come into the Union-when in a very short period sovereign states will occupy every foot of territory within the limits of the United States, and this principle will become universal, are we justified, are we acting in the true spirit of the Constitution, are we not violating the obligations upon us, when we trample this principle under foot, and undertake to control the domestic relations of a people who are, with our consent, in the possession of legislative power, and admitted by us to be capable of exercising it?

Why should we undertake in this government here to exercise this power of dictating to them?

What right have we, in these Atlantic States, over the people of the remote territories to dictate law to them? They are American citizens. They have gone into these territories with the full rights of American citizens. Why should we seek to exercise this arbitrary power over them? Why should we assume on our part to govern them at our will and pleasure? It would be as arbitrary and despotic power as exists anywhere in the civilized or uncivilized world. It will be the same arbitrary power which the parliament of Great Britain undertook to exercise over the American colonies when they resisted and revolted. It will be the despotism practiced by the worst governments over the most abject and down-trodden people of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Having no foundation in the consent of the people who are made its slaves, it will be an unmixed evil in our system, pregnant with the worst consequences of tyranny, and worse than anarchy in its worst form.

And am I to be called upon here to participate in exercising any such power? I detest it. I will never participate in it. I will go to the people and I will ask them if they are willing to be instrumental in the exercise of despotic power over their fellow-citizens; because, forsooth, their enterprise has borne them on to the region of the Rocky Mountains? I will ask if these people have ceased to be Americans; if they have become incapable of exercising the right of self-government, because they have encountered the hardships of the wilderness to become the founders of new states; and if they have themselves so soon forgotten the first principles of liberty, the lessons of the Revolution, and the lessons of the revolutionary fathers, that they are willing to wield this despotic power over their children. Sir, I know what the popular response will be. Sir, I know what it will be. The people of this country will be unanimous-ultimately unanimous. Their "sober second thought" will be everywhere; let the people rule; let them govern themselves in their own way when in the possession of legislative power; let this federal government, in wielding the power over what is necessary over the territories, conform it to the principles upon which the Constitution is founded.

MR. HUNTER, OF VIRGINIA,

after detailing the events attending the legislation in 1850, said:

But the South was voted down, and the whole question was so settled that, practically, there is not one square inch of that territory which the South can ever settle or occupy; and, in exchange for it, the South got, first, the declaration on the part of the leading Northern friends of that Compromise-a declaration which seems to have been sustained by the legislation of the country-that it was unconstitutional to pass any law that should prohibit the introduction of slavery into the unoccupied territories of the United States; and secondly, the admission of the principle that the true mode of organizing that unoccupied territory is to give the people of the territory power to legislate over all rightful subjects of legislation which are consistent with the Constitution. That was all the South received in exchange for its just share of that vast territory; and although I believe that it was the almost universal sentiment of the South that they had been wronged in this adjustment, yet they acquiesced and submitted.

It is then surprising that when we come to organize the territorial government of this country, where slavery is prohibited by preceding legislative restriction, the South should say, "Gentlemen, you said it was unconstitutional to pass a legislative prohibition. Here is one; we ask you to remove it. You

said that the true way to constitute a territorial government was to give to the people of that territory power to legislate upon all rightful subjects of legislation consistently with the Constitution. We ask you to give that power to the people in these territories in the precise words contained in the bill for the territorial organization of Utah." Was it not then an inevitable consequence of the course of events I have depicted that the South should make this request? Is it not a matter of justice, is it not a matter of constitutional right, that the North should accord it?

Subsequently, Mr. Stuart, of Michigan, stated that senators. from the South had denied that under the language of the bill the Legislature of the Territory would have the same authority over slavery as over any other subject-that under the words of the bill the Legislature was restrained in its action upon the subject of slavery. He referred to Mr. Hunter as one of those who had thus questioned the extent and operation of the words of the bill. Mr. Hunter thus clearly and explicitly responded:

Mr. Hunter: If the senator will allow me, I will state that I only desired it because I thought the Constitution prohibits them from so legislating. I believe the bill, as it now stands, gives the people of the territories all the power that any bill could give them, unless there is some power beyond the Constitution which they may exercise. That was the opinion which I expressed that they would be restricted by the Constitution, and I presume it will restrict them whether we mention it or not.

MR. CASS, OF MICHIGAN.

"The power of the people to legislate for themselves upon all these questions of domestic policy is the inevitable result of the preceding principles and of American institutions. If Congress have no jurisdiction over the subject, the people must have it, or the most important concerns of social and of civil life would be left without security or protection. No one has ever questioned their just claim to regulate, by their immediate representatives, the various questions connected with their civil and social relations, except this relation of master and servant, and this exception cannot stand the test of any reasonable scrutiny. I am aware of the objections which have been urged against the existence of this right of self-government founded on the connection of the people of the territories with the government of the United States, and I have been amazed at the subtle arguments, politico-metaphysical indeed, which have been presented against the enjoyment of one of the most sacred rights which God has given to man.

The inseparable union between representation and the regulation of the domestic affairs of a community, including taxation, is one of the cardinal principles of American political faith laid down in our state papers, taught in our schools, and triumphantly asserted and defended on the battle-field-a principle which the Continental Congress, in 1774, declared in these words:

"The English colonists are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial Legislatures, where their right of representacan alone be preserved in all cases of taxation and internal policy, etc. And strange is it, in the vacillation of human opinions, that from defenders we are urged to become offenders, and, with the practice, to adopt the principle of Lord North in this crusade against human rights. For there is scarcely an argument which can be urged against this claim of local legislation which the British Ministry did not urge against the demands of our fathers to be allowed to legislate on themselves. We have been told with due gravity, and, I have no doubt, with due sincerity, that the United States are the 'Sovereign;' and we have been asked, 'and how can sovereignty, the ultimate and supreme power of the state, be divided?' Sovereignty indeed! and who can find the word in the Constitution, or who can deduce any power from its use? It is a process of constructive authority which cannot be too severely reprobated, at war, as it is, with the fundamental basis of the confederation. Once establish its operation as the foundation of Congressional action, and other and nearer rights than those of distant, feeble communities, would soon be prostrated before it."

"But, sir, whether the government of the United States is sovereign or subordinate, supreme or inferior, confederated or consolidated-and consolidated it will become, if some of these doctrines prevail-are questions not worth a moment's consideration in any inquiry into its legitimate power. Neither these nor any other attributes can confer upon it the least jurisdiction. To find what that is, we must go to the Constitution-to the law and the testimony. And all these useless, and some of them unintelligible abstractions, were urged as reasons why the internal affairs of American citizens, called freemen, should be controlled by a distant legislature, not one member of which entitled to vote is elected by, or is responsible to them.

"His Majesty in Parliament, said the Government of George III., has the right, by statute, to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever. It took Lord North and his master George III. seven years to learn the falsehood of this assumption, and the lesson cost them an empire. While history is the record of human actions, it is the reiteration of human motives and pretensions. And now before all the men of the generation which successfully resisted this edict of tyranny have passed away, we are called upon practically to declare that our majesty, this government in Congress, has the right by statute to bind the territories in all cases whatsoever, or, according to the new version, to sell the people into slavery. This is good doctrine over the water at Berlin, and Vienna, and at Petersburgh, but I hope not upon the Wabash, though we are told that God has spared a precious life upon its fertile banks in order to announce and promulgate it. The ways of Providence are often dark to us blind mortals, but seldom darker than in this case, whether we consider the messenger or the message, the prophet or the prophecy. He without whose knowledge no sparrow falls to the ground, sometimes selects strange instruments, according to our comprehension, to accomplish his wise designs. It