I I 4 o %♦ ^0 'bV _ ,. **'% "^^P- .-^^'\ •.^;- **'"^*. '^ ^-^vV ^^jm^r.\ ^^JU^ oV^^^ia'- ^OV^ ''Jm^^^\ '^^r!\v: We are now in Committor of the Whole on tl»c slate of llic Union, and all mat- ters that r<-iatc to the welfare of the Union are proper subjects for discussion. There are several topics upon whicli I desire to express my views, but tlie l)rief period allowed me to address the committee, eomhined wiili the state of my liealth tliis evening, admonishes mo tiiat 1 shall be un- able to toucii upon more than oneor two of them. Sir, I do not stand here for tlie purpose of <:HiestioniH;? the elaims of either the " Demo- cratic" or the " American" parties to that kind of " nationality" which appt-ars to obtain so much favor on the other side of thi^ Hout>e. I have no doubt thej'^are both "sound" on the sub- ject of slavery, as that expression is understood at the South. I listened to the aro;uments of the Gentlemen from Kentucky, [Mr. Cox and Mr. Uurvktt,] who discussed this question — the one on Fridiiy evening;, and the other last evening — and I con- fess that each of them succeeded in satisfying mc that he was risrht; at least so far as his own candidate for President is concerned. Tlipyeach demonstrated, I think, that in case Mr. Fillmore or Mr. Ruflianan shall be elected, the South will have reason tube perfectly satisfied. Mr. Fremont is the only candidate before the people, for the office of President, who, if elected, will oppose the further extension of slavery. Fully believing this, and tliat he comos up to the Jeffi-Tsonian standard of qualification for office — that he is honest, capable, and faitltful to the Constitution — I support him. But, sir, I did not rise for the purpose of making a presidential speech. I prefer to discu.S8 principles, rather than parties or men; and as there is one great question before the American : people that overshadows all others, I will direct my attention to that. All other questions are' coliateral or subordiuate to it in the public miitd | I at tills time. That question is, Shall dlnvery be I extended into the free Terrilories of the Unilc4 States .' Gentlemen from the South tell us that they ask no legislation for the purpose of exlendin'j sla- very, but at the sam<" time they rhum n construc- tion of the Constitution, and of the laws nlrendjr in existence, that would render any leirislation la behalf of slavery extension entirely superfluous. Almost every srenileman who hns spoken on tliat side of the House has made this rj.um, by insisting that they have the right to go into the common Territories of the United States and take their" property" withthem. Onegentlemaf^ (.Mr. Warverj from Georgia, in the boldest, as wel as the ablest speech that I have listened to on this subject, discarded the specious phrase used bjr most of his associates, and took his position m the following language. He says: " I .'••hall endeavor to inalnl.iiii »nil tn i1cni'>n«lrntf that, in .iccordancK wiUi those tuiitlamentiil prniniilpi'. niv cnm- slitueuti< have both the letfiU and rquiLib! •" ' !ik» their slave property into tlie eoiiiiuon tefrili>r\ and to have it proteeied tliere ; ami that ih' ■ t has no power under the Conditulion to depm. ..jx right." Now, sir, I take issue with the gentleman upon this proposition; and as it claims for sluveholder^ the right to spread slavery over all the Territonee of the United Suites, by merely emi'.'rnting !• those Territories with their slnve.s, it JMromr* necessary for us to inquire by what tenup- that institution exists anywhere, and how it haj acquired this right of unlimited exjwnsiori' It is manifest that the Constitution of ' '' • 1 States did not create .slavery — f.ir.-l.n I before the Constitution was made. '! tution does not uphold slavery, iH-caimo e«cii State has an undoubted riglit to abolish it withm its own limits, and wherever its exclusive juru- diction extends. Sir, the institution of slavery was eatabli«he4 and is uph.ld wholly l>y f"or«— by the power of the strniisjer over thi' weaker. Ii neviTcan rxi«t unless one man, or one cia.is or nre of men hare conquered and subdued another nuui, or daas or race of men, and compelled them to obey the jj laws prescribed by the conquerors. When the conqueror has deprived the conquered of the "in- alienable ri£;ht " to " liberty and the pursuit of I hapjiiness," the relation of master and slave ex- J ists, but not till then. This nlation can only be upheld by actual force, or by legal enactment, or by long continued usage, recognized by the , supreme power in the State, which has all the force and effect of positive law; and it can only exist where the master has absolute and exclu- sive jurisdiction, j' If this institution exists by virtue of State laws, then it extends no further than the jurisdiction of the Slates by whose laws it is upheld extends. , And in the States where it exists, I have no ij purpose to interfere with it. But I deny the right jj or the power of citizens of slave States to carry jj their slave laws into United States Territories by | emigrating to those Territories with their slaves. They claim the right to go where the power that makes and upholds their slave laws has no juris- diction, where there is no law sanctioning sla- very, and there claim the right to hold their slaves. Let us illustrate this proposition. Suppose a citizen of Georgia should remove with his slaves into a Territory of the United States: he must continue to hold them in the Territory, because the laws of Georgia have conferred on him the power to do so. But suppose that Georgia, after nis removal, should abolish shivery, (a very im- probable thing, I admit:) could that act reach or in any way affect the owner of slaves who had emigrated from Georgia into a Territory of the United States? Most clearly it could not, because he would be beyond her jurisdiction, and no longer her citizen. We should then have this singular state of things — that the State of Georgia had conferred power, which she could not revoke, to be exercised within Territories over which she had no jurisdiction, by persons over whom she had ceased to have any control; and slavery •would exist in the United States Territories under and by virtue of the laws of a Slate that had dis- carded the system for itself; and as the gentle- man's doctrine denies that the General Govern- ment has any power under the Constitution to prevent the introduction of slavery into the Ter- ritories, or 10 abolish it when once there, it fol- lows that citizens of the slaveholding States have the excliviive control of the question, whether sla- very shall exist in the Territories or not. Is this the " equality of the citizens of all the States," about which we have had so much elo- quent declamation during the present session on this floor? is there no scclionalism in claiming for citizens of the slaveholding States the exclusive power to determine whether slavery shall go into the Territories or not? Sir, it has been repeatedly shown by gentlemen on this sidi; of the llouse, that the franiers of our Constitution regarded and treated slavery as an evil that would, in the course of time, cease to exist by the voluntary action of the States where it was tolerated, and not as an institution to be cherished and extended and pcTpetuated; and that j least of all did they imagirie that they iuul left this | evil the {»ower of indefinite expansion, with no power, anywhere, to check or control it. i .shall therefore spend no time in endeavoring to deinon- sirale the truth of these propositions, but will pro- ceed to examine some other positions assumed in liis argument by the gentleman from Georgia. He says: " It will be recollcptert that the Federal Constitation was' not establislii'd to create new rights, but to secure and pro- tect exislin;; Tislit». Hence it is material to inquire, what were the rif;lil.-; of the people of the slaveholding States in regard to their slave property, before and at the time of tlie adoption of that Constitution .' I sliall maintain, and under- take to establish, that the title of my constituents to their slave property is not based upon any positiif law of the State, but that it rests for its foundation upoii the universal law of nations, which recognized slaves as property, l>efore and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. That bel'ore and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the citizens of the State of Georgia — the same being a sov- ereign, independent State — had the undoubted right, ac- cording to the well established principles of international law — to lake their slave property into any foreign territory : provided there was no law in that foreign territory prohilit- ing its introduction there, and to have it protected in such foreign territory — that the Jaw of nations was adopted as a part of the common law in the original thirteen States, con- stituting a part of the law of the land bel'ore and at the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitation." Sir, the Constitution was established not only to protect " existing rights," but to define, to some extent, what those rights were. The Con- stitution, and the whole theory of our Govern- ment, are based upon the great fundamental truth, that all men are created with an equality of rights. The battles of the Revolution were fought to es- tablish this principle, and the Constitution was adopted to uphold and maintain it. The Consti- tution did not abolish slavery in the States, nor did it abolish any of the municipal laws of the Slates. But that instrument is, in itself, a strin- gent penal statute against any infrirvgenraent of the right of personal freedom, within the Territories over which it has exclusive jurisdiction. The gentleman says that the title of his con- stituents " to their slave property is not based upon any positive law of the State, but that it rests for its foundation upon the universal law of na- tions, which recognized slaves as />ro;)e7-ti/, before and at the time of the adoption of the Constitu- tion;" and " that the law of nations was adopted as a part of the common law in the original thir- teen States, constituting a part of the law of the land at the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution." Now, sir, I deny that we have incorporated into our system any principle, whether recog- nized by the law of nations or not, that is at war with the great principle of tlie equality of humau rights. We have not adopted the principle that' kings rule by divine right; we do not recognize the hereditary right of one class of men to make ourlaws. And yet the " universal law of nations" recognized both these principles " before and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution," just as fully as it recognized slavery. Sir, our Government was founded upon principles radi- cally different from any nation on earth. Our doctrine is, that " Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." In no other nation was this principle recognized and acted upon at the time our Government was formed. And how can it be said that we have, by implication, adopted principles and laws that are directly antagonistic to the fundamental prin- ciples of our Government. Sir, whatever there was in the law of nations antagonistic to our system, was abolished, so far as we are con- cerned, by our Constitution. It hns l)ocome quite fashionable for pjpnllemrn on liiis floor to sneer at llif t:rcat |i'ii(liii!r priiici- pli'S iiniioimceil in t|ie Declarntioii of Indeprnd- cncc — at tiie " suif-i'vidont" irutlia upon wliicli our j)olilic-al systoni is fonndcil; bocuusi- those truths stand like a wall of (ire across their |>atli, to arrest ilie further s))read of hun)an slavery. Let {gentleman refleet that tiie Deelnialion of In- dependence did not create those principles — it only adopted and announced what was already true — «a the foundation of our political system. If those principles are not sound, our revolutioiutry fathers wen- rehi-ls ajjainst riu;lilful authority, and our Uevoluiion was only a successful rehel- lion. IJut if those principh-s are sound and rifjht, then the institution of slavery must be regarded now as it was rei^arded by the franiers of the ('onstitutinn — as an evil to be i^ot rid ot', not as nn institution to bo cherished and extend(td. Sir, the people of this nation have never adopted slavery as a ;ialional institution. fcJuch a claim was never put forth in its behalf until it was feared that all other means mis^ht fail of subjecting Kansas to tiiat interest, liut now it is claimed, with the utmost assurance, that no man or ])arty can be national in their views unless they sub- scribe to tlie doctrine, that citizens of the slave States have the right to spread slavery in the Territories wherever they may see fit to go, and that there is no power in the (jrovernment to pre- vent them from doing so. And this right is con- ferred on them by the law of nations, the gentle- man tells us. Sir, the gentleman has not told us ■when or iiow the law of nations became incor- porated into, and became a part of, the municipal laws of this Government; and even if he is cor- rect in basing the title to slave property upon that law, 1 think he has extended his claim in that behalf much further than the cases he cites will warrant. The cases he cites were decided by the high court of Admiralty and the court of King's Bench, in England; and they decide that, in Iyi7, English cruisers could not legally cap- ture slave ships and their cargoes on the high seas, when owned by subjects of a nation that had entered into no treaty stipulations a£;ainst the slave trade. They decide nothing more than this: that England could not rightfully interfere with the municipal or maritime regulations of a nation with whom she was at peace. If the owners of these slaves had voluntarily taken them to England, for the purpose of there hold- ing them as property, these cases would have borne a much closer analogy to the claim made in behalf of the "peculiar institution" by the gentleman from Georgia; but, as they stand, it Seems to me tliey do not sustain the point he has made. Sir, 1 propose to meet the gentleman with au- thorities upon the issue between us; and it seems to me that the cases 1 shall cite entirely over- throw, not only i)ie inferences he seeks to draw from the English cases he has cited, but the whole argument he has made, ingenious, able, and plaus- ible as I concede it to be. The authoritiis I cite are American authorities, and the^ have this ad- vantage over those cited by the gentleman, that they are directly upon one of the main points in liie controversy, and they need no argument to enforce or apply them. In thff case of Jonwi affninat Van Zaiwli, « McLean's Ueportii, 5%, the court i»«y»: Willi.- II I, Snile I 0/ tl, •tli.|. n !>••( ■Ir* : ncK lll> II) Vinilr ..' ■ ii'tiiiiii il ; ami II ;i !*U\tr, llr It /rrr, r<»Utiit|i>ii an,! . ^ 'lliiru M no ||<'liriii| idiiiiijjr iii lilc /ui. . .t.icb re«iuiri-* null .urr.-iij.-r." In deciding the crh-ltmtrd CMMfof l'nii$> n. thr Slate of IVniiHylvunin, li! iVtera, 54U, the court lays down these propusitions: " Hy the liiw III' iinliuiii, nn Hint'- >• •- • •■ .-.-.— «!»<■ Klavi-ry ill niiiitli<-r .'^inii'. Iii«aii> a matter ol iiiti-riiniKiiial rielii. . ileriiied Id he a iin-re fiiuni< i;miI n aiitl limited to, lilv raiije u( lint lernuiiial Um>. The same principles wen- dintinrtly rrcoeniud in three English cases decided bifon- ihc IIi-toIii. tion, all of which are cited by the court in d'cidin); the case of Prigg r.i. the Stale of reiMiHyUnnia. If your slaves are not held by virtue of your State laws, you have no power, under the Con- stitution, to reiaki- ilii-m as fugitiven from w-rvic*-. Il is only persons held to labor or service " btfUu laws of the Hlalcs'^ from which iliey eica|M-, that can be returned; and if a slave should i-acape from a Tcrrilonj where there is no law on Ihc subject of slavery, wilT anybody pr.trnd that he can be retaken and remanded into slavery.' I commend this question to the careful coiiHidcra- lion of those strict constructioniHts of the Con- stitution on this floor, whoclaim the riglit to carry tlie iii'litution of slaviry, uinii-r tin- iiuiiie of pro- peity, into the Territories of the United Slates. And I desire, in this connection, to call altcnliun to the opinion of a distinguished jurist of my own State — a Democrat, "tJyed in the wool" — one of the hardest of thi^ Hartis — the Hon. Urccnc C. Bronson, formerly chief justiceof the supreme court, and afterwards chief judge of the court of appeals — a man whose legal atiainineiits and ability are known and acknowledged throughout the Union. In a letter dated July 15, Itt4d, after declining an invitation to attend a political meet- ing, lie says: " Slavery cannot exist wliPrc there M no poMtive law if> uphold il. Il i:i iiui necesi^ary lliat it should b<- Inrbuldi-n ; il IS enough thai il is iioi sipeeially aiilliori/.id. IT (In owner of slaves removes with or sends Uiem iiito any country, State, or Territory, where t-lavi-ry does noi r^i.i by law, they will from that moment bcoomi- free im-n, and will have as good a right to rominand the inasK-r. a.-. In- will have to eoiinnaiid them, i^iaie laws havr no i-xira lirrilonal au- thority; and a law of Virginia which inak<-' a man niilaw there, cannot make him a slave in New Vork, u« bcxond tlie lloeky .Mouiilains. '• Entertaining no doiibl upon ihnl question, I can *rc nn occasion for asking ('Kiigres.N to Ifgi.-late ag-.iin!il the rxlrn sion of slavery into fn-e territory, ami, a> a qu>-n of policy, I think it had beiK r be h-i aloiir. If our Miulbcm hrelhren wi.-h to carry llnir slavi-s loHrt-r"" ^' ' ^'^ 'i<-o, or California, lln-y will be undi-r liie m • j « law to warrant it ; and it will then be ii 'i-r Stales to re^^isl Ihe measure, Ofl I cannot J . uW, with iinwavpring lirmiu'ss. " [ would uoi needlessly move ihin qui-»lion, »• it U on» of an e.xoiung nature, winch lend- i 1...11 il .iivi.i.m. and may do iis Imrni as a people. I W"'; ■»«•■ hollliiiu Stales to ileride for thrin «■* rcspoiisibilily, when, if ever, Uie n ■ ''r4 in Congress.' Il may Im- that llie) »iil ,». : vci move at all, especuilly as 11 serins iwitli ■ 'd thai neither Oregon, Vcw Mexirn, nor r . vHI ailnpted toslave labor. Hut if our nouihfrn bi.Uinn Uiould make tJie quenuun, we kholl liavo do climcr but U> p>««l 6 It, 811(1 tliPii, H-liatcVT consequences may fnllnw, I trust nil- |.r.i|);.- 1.1 ilii it-^ l-u.lK-> will KivL- a u.iiii'd voice against Dlli>wing slavery on n single fool of soil where it is not uow authorized hv law. " 1 aui, very resuectfullv, your ohodient servant, ' "<;iri of thi' .soil. To establish the institutions of a Slate or TeTritory is to exercise sovereign power. The gentleman from Georgia claims for his constituents the right to exi'rcise tiiis sov- ereign power in the Territorie.s, in di sjjite of the Getieral Government, by estahli.shing the insti- tution of slavery. Wliatever may be the tenure of slavery in the States — whether it rests upon State law, the law of actual force, or the law of nations, no such power as the gentleman claims can ever be conceded to the citizens of the slave- holding States. To concede that would be to surrender, by the national Govunment, abso- lutely, its right of sovereigntyin the Territories to the citizens of a seciioh to establish a sectional institution; and this Government would fail to accomplish one of the great — perhajis 1 should say the greatest — objects for which it was created. None of the Stales ever had any title to the soil or the sovereignty of Kansas. That Terri- tory was acquired by the Federal Government , in its sovereign capacity, long after the Consti- ' tution was adopted. The same ael that ceded the soil of this Territory to our Government, also, in express terms, ceded all the rights of sovereignty over it; and it will not be contended that any State can legally or rightfully so legis- late as to affect in any way the institutions of that Territory. If the States themselves have no power in the premisi-s, how can they confer the f)0wer upon their citizens to establish their State laws in these Territories, against the consent of Congress, and without the aid of any territorial law .-' Sir, these Territories, prior to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, had no law but the law of nature and the Constitution of the United Slates; and neither of these establish 4*r uphold slavery. Thereisno legal slavery there. But the claim is made, that the citizens of the slavehold- ing States can plant il there in defiance of the General Government, and then compel the Gov- ernment to uphold and defend it. The proposi- tion is monstrous. It gives the citizens of the slaveholding Stales the absolute and exclusive control of the whole question, and of all the Territories. They do, il is true, concede in the argument, to freemen the privilege of cultivating the soil in tliose Territories, upon the condition that they should assume asocial position approxi- mating nearer to that of the slave than of liis mas- ter. 'I'hey do in argument hero, concede the right of the citizens of the free States to emigrate to the Territories; but they claim for themselves the exclusive right, when they emigrate tiiere, of carrying with them the laws of the States from which they emigrate, and of which they are no longer citizens. The gentleman from Georgia has said that "there is not a slaveholder in this House or out of it but who knows perfectly wi II that, whenever slavery is confined within certain specified limits, its future existence is doomed; il is only a ques- tion of time as to its final destruction." And the gentleman tells us that, "if we lake any slave holtling county in the southern States in which the great staples of cotton and sugar are culti- vated to any •ctent, and confine the present slave- population within the limits of that c"uniy,such is the rapid nauiral inert'ase of the slaves and the rapid exhaustion ol" the soil in the cultivation of those crops, that in a few years it would be im- possible to support them within the limits of such ' county; liotli ninstcr and slnvo wrinM hn stnrvi-d out; and what would l)t' llir [uacti.-nl iirci-i innny one cdUiity, ilic s:Mn(! n-sull would lia[>pi-n in nil the slrtvihdldinjc States" — tluit " sliivi ry cannot be confined witliin certain specified limits with- out producinjr llie destruction of l>i)tli nuisl.rnnd slave; it nqmreH fnsh laiuls, plenty of wood nnii water, not only for the conUnrt and liajipineKs of the slave, lint for the hi'Uefit of the owner." This is the plea in behalf of slaviryexiensioii. Heeause it exhausts the sod — because sii-riliiy and deso- lation mark its patli — l)ecause it would starve itself out, if confined within anij limits, slavery must have unlimited power of expansion ! iJo notgentltinen perceive that this is a conclusive and unansweral>le argument against the existence of | this " peculiar institution" anywhere? | Mr. W.VRNHll. Will tin' £;entlcmnn from New York allow me to interrupt him a moment.' Mr. KIOLSKV. Certainly. Mr. WARiNIsR. The {gentleman has stated my remarks fairly. I do not desire to quality ' them in any respect whatever. Hut when lie attributes that result to slave lab(»r, allow me to say to him, that the same result would happen if these crops were cultivated by tree labor — tlie same result precisely. It is not the kind of labor employed, but it is the peculiar character of the cro]):* ihemselves, and the peculiar character of the cultivation of these crops, as well as the pecu- liar charaiitor of the climate where those crops are cultivated. We have plantations cultivated on a small scale Ijy white labor; in my imme- diate neighborliood, and those lands are quite as much exhausted ,and more so, than those cul- tivated by slave labor, for the reason tliat they have not the same force to keep them in llie proper condition, and to prevent the eU'ects which result from thi; cultivation of the cotton crops. Tliey have not the force to make hillside ditches, and prevent their lands from washing, to which they are niucli exposed in consequence of the necessary li;_'ht culture in the production of the cotton crop. The same result precisely happens, ■whether the lands are cultivated by slave or by free labor. j Mr. KELSEY. I am not familiar with the cultivation of the crops alluded to by the gentle- man; but I do not suppose tliey are more exhaust- ing to the soil than many of the crops cultivated at llie North by free labor, and wliere their sys- tem of husbandry, instead of impoverishing, enrich(>s the land. And if the same system of husbandry were resorted to with these crops, I have! no doubt that the same results would follow. But that system of cultivation never will be re- sorted to until a system is inaugurated that shall pay to labor its just reward. It is cultivation by the arm of the intelligent free laborer, that will enrich and not impoverish the soil of any country. But suppose we give up all the Territories to slavery: will that satisfy its demands.' No; for the gentleman tells us it " cannot be confined within certain specified limits without producing the destruction of both master and slave." And when the Territories have beim overrun — when the wood has been consumed, and the soil worn out, slavery must spread still further, or cease to exist. If it is to spread still further, where ahall it go.> If there is no virgin soil except. I within free States, it must have that. The pleii of necestiiiy will be still airongtT then than it is now, ami will be pres.ied with iiion: urgency and backed by mon; power. iSir, this (piestioti must be met and settled now. .\nd in my |ud:;meiit there m but om- l)asis upon which It can b<- settled ho that it will remain set- ili d. The absolute sovereignly ot" the (jeniTnl Ciovernineiit over ihe Territories musi be admit- ted, as it always hiw bi.-eii pruRiically udiiiitted, until this controversy was forced upon us; and the duty of this (iovirnmeiit to i xcliide shivery from free ii'rntory must bi- ackiiowledge-d and jicrliirmed. The manner in which that duty shall lie performed is not very material, provided it in done speedily and ellectually. There is one way I of eflecting this object that ought to be entirely I satisfactory to the advricalcs of th(- Kansus^Nc- I braska act, who have sustained that measure upon the grounii that it left the people of those Terri- tories at liberty to settle this (luestioii I'or them- selves; and that way is to admit Kansas into the Union with her present free cniistitutiini. Her people have settleil this question for themselves, notwitlistanding her territory has bein invaded, her territorial government usurped, and her citi- zens lynched and murderecl. TIk; freemen of Kansas have decided in favor of freedom, and they call on you to redeem your pledges, and admit them into the Union. Hut ilpy have not decided this question as ymi wished, and you hesitate to redeem your promises, ^'ou tell us, and the President tells us, thi.s constitution was made by a ]iarty,«|Kl therefore Kansas must not be admitted. Well, sir, how many Stale consti- tutions have been made that were not made by a party.' Is there a single one now in existence that was not framed by delegates, a large major- ity of whom were ehcted by a party vote, and in a large majority of cases have not tlio.se con- stitutions been adopted by a party vote? But the President and his friends tell us, that neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature authorized the ]ieople of Kansas to form this constitution. And this oijjection is uri;ed by the advocates of "squatter sovereignly." What! gentlemen, do you object to the squatter sover- eigns exercising the jiower you have so lately insisted that they possess? if the inhabitants of a Territory really liave the right of sovereignty in that Territory, will you presume to dictate to them when or how they shall exercise that power? You repudiate the princijde of squatter sovereignly the moment you allemjit any dicta- tion to or interference wiili them in this matter. True, you never have piactically acknowledged that the inhabitants of this Territory ['ossess the right of sovereignly over it. You have retained the control of the executive and judicial branches of tiieir Governmi;nt, while pretending to give lhi;m full power over all sulijects of legislation, or, as you say in your Kansas-Nebraska act, you leave them perlectly free to form their own local and domestic institutions. Hut what a perfect mockery is this declaration, if the positions taken by thegi;ntleman fn>m Georgia nre correct! In the Kansas-Nebraska act, you say the people of those Territories shall dei.^rmine whether they will have slavery or not. The gentleman from Georgia says that the people of the slave States have the right to determine that question by taking 8 their slaves into the TerritoricB, and there holding them as property; and that you not only cannot prevent them from doin^ so, but that you are bound to protect them in doing it. I have no doubt that the doctrine of the gen- tleman from Georgia is now the doctrine of the Democratic party. The interests of slavery re- quire that the doctrine of " squatter sovereignty" should now be abandoned, and it has been done by the very men who brought it into existence. The doctrines of the gentleman from Georgia settle this question, practically and forever, in favor of the claims of slavery, and therefore they will be ado]ited. Some northern Democrats may object to this at first, but they will eventually yieiii.as they always have yielded to such de- mands, to preserve the "nationality" of their party, and to '* save the Union !" Mr. WARNER. If the gentleman from New York will allow me— I have not maintained the doctrine of squatter sovereignly, in the general acceptation of that term. Mr. KELSEY. I did not impute to the gen- tleman that he maintained that doctrine. My f»oint was, that the doctrine of squatter sovereignty lad been repudiated by the Democratic party, and that the doctrines laid do.wn some time ago by the gentleman had been adopted by the Dem- ocratic party in its stead. Mr. WARNER. 1 repudiate the doctrine of squatter sovereignty. I hold that, in the organ- ization of the Territories, the people of the Ter- i-itories can exercise no other powers than those delegated to them. My position is, that the Territories are the common property of the peo- ple of all the States of the Union; but that so long as they remain in their territorial condition. Congress has no power to discriminate against the people of one section of the Confederacy, that they shall remain as property common to all until such time ai^hey shall assemble in conven- tion, with the assemDf Congress, to form a State constitution to be admitted into the Union as States, when the people may then decide whether they shall have slavery or not. The southern people have no desire to establish slavery in any territory, but to have the people of all the States perfectly free to settle that common territory with their property, and, when they come to form a State constitution, to decide the question of slavery for themselves. Mr. KELSEY. 1 agree with the gentleman frorH'Georgia that Congress has no right to dis- crim^iate between the people of the different sec- tions of the country, in permitting them to go into the Territories of the United States. My position is that Congress shall prevent any such discrimination as would permit the citizens of one section to carry with them the laws of the States from which they emigrate, while the citizens of other sections can do no such thing. 1 insist on real equality of rights for the citizens of all sections of the country. But, sir, the Union is always in peril when there is any serious objection to granting all that the interests of slavery demand. And the gen- tleman tells us, in his speech, that the people of Georgia have assembled in convention, and sol- emnly resolved that if Congress shall pass a law excluding them from the common territory with their slave property, they will disrupt the ties that bind them to the Union. And this is not a '* threat," the gentleman tells us; for Georgia never threatens. But it is the same, in substance, as the '^threats" of dissolving the Union that we have heard at intervals for the last twenty-five years. This is probably intended, by the people of Georgia, merely as a learning. But whether intended as a warning or a threat, it is a produc- tion that has often emanated from the slave States — South Carolina and Georgia having produced their full share of the article. But 1 can assure the gentleman that, so far as I know the views of the people of the North, neither these threats nor warnings will have any effect upon them. They will not subscribe to the doctrine, that slavery has the right to expand itself over the Territories, in despite of the legislation of Congress; they will not consent to any further extension of slavery, under any pretense, or in view of any alternative whatever. W46 <> *'.'.•* .0 ;* * . » • 0, !Pv\ 4 o. ^^/^"rr* ,o«- A" . 1 • . . -^ L^^ •< py % v^ .♦i:^'*^ <^ ,^ . t . - '**■ -^^.^ "a. 9*^' 1 • A^*^ - > V* • • • ■ ,.*^ /Jlfej\ *^^.J' :'^i/)k. ^*..<.* /.^Ife*-. %».^* • J I ^t