Crawfordsville Review, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County, 3 June 1854 — Page 1

:#C

NKBKA.SK.V AND KANSAS.

Speech of Hon. W. H. English,

OF INDIANA,

IN THE HOUSE OF 11E I' RES EN AT 1V ES, f- MAV 9TH, 1054. The House being in Committee of the

Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. ENGLISH said: Mr. A I A N: The territorial question now under the consideration of the committee is one universally recognised as of great importance, and has elicited the patient investigation and elaborate discussion of the ablest statesmen in America.

Involving, as it docs, sectional questions of the most delicate character, and principies of government of the highest magnitudo, and applicable, as it is, to a territory said to be twice as large as the kingdom of France, and from ten to fifteen times largcr than the State of Indiana, it is not to be wondered that it has awakened so much of the public attention. I approach it, sir, with surae degree of reluctance, for I am but a new member in this hall, and not much in the habit of public speaking.

In the hour I propose devoting to the subject, I do not flatter myself that 1 shall bo able to abduce many new arguments, or to present old ones in an improved light but, in view of the position I occupy as a member of the Committee on Territories where this bill originated, as well as from other considerations, I feel that I shall be excused for occupying the floor upon this occasion.

When the subject was first introduced I was one of those who questioned the pro--M priety of organizing territorial governments at the present session. I was inclined to doubt whether the population of Nebraska '. or the wants of the emigrating portion of our people demanded immediate organization.

The immense quantity of unsettled public land in the Territories already organized seemed to afford a sufficient outlet to emigration for the present and, by reasonable delay, I hoped that treaties might be formed with the Indians of such a character as to remove every suspicion of bad faith on the part of the United States towards this unfortunate and almost annihilated race of men besides, it seemed evident that questions would necessarily be involved in the measure which could not fail, for a time at least, to disturb the peace and harmony of the country. Upon the other hand, I felt it to be true that the want of population was attributable to the restrictions imposed upon emigration by the existing laws, and that it was highly important to the country that settlements should be encouraged along the great line of travel to the golden shores of the Pacific. It was evident, too, that the questions involved in the organization of these territories could not be kept out of Congress beyond a few sessions at most but, under all the circumstances, I was in-1 alined to believe that to protect the country -from excitement and agitation for any time, however short, was a consummation of sufficicntimportance to justify a postponement /of the question to some future session.—

These, sir, were my first impressions. It •was with ine, however, wholly a question, .of time, and not of doubt,to the charac-javowing ter of the law under which the Territories, /should be organized.

Entertaining these views, I felt constrained, by a sense of duty, when the question came up before the Territorial Committee, of which I have the honor to be a member, to offer a resolution dcclariug it inexpedient, at that time, to decide in favor of organizing territorial governments for Nebraska and Kansas. The resolution, sir, was voted down, and the committee decided in favor of reporting the bill now under consideration, similar in all respects, I believe, to the one upon the same subject /•then pending in the Senate. This House bill, it will be remembered, was reported from the Territorial Committee, on the 31st of January last, when, by the indulgence if the House, I was permitted to make a minority report, and some explanatory remarks against certain features of the bill as il then stood.

I recur to these events, in order to show -that this measure was brought before Con,'gress and the country without any agency of mine. It was brought here contrary to my wishes, and in opposition to my vote.

But, sir, IT IS IIEKE—STARING US IX THE RACE FOR DECISION—and it has gone hence, with tho torch of discord, to all parts of, this wide-spread land IT IS NO LONGER THE SAME QUESTION" IT WAS IN THE BEGINMso. Delay would not now secure the end aimed at in my resolution but would, I believe, have an opposite cffect. The measure has been elaborately discussed in, the Senate of the United States, and a bill -has come into this House from that distinguished body, by a majority which, considering the great and diversified interests nt stake, is almost without a parallel in congressional legislation.

The agitation, so much to be deplored,: is already upon the country, and from Maine to California this subject engrosses the public mind, and is the prolific theme' upon the public tongue. This being the case, NON-ACTION IS NO LONGER THE TRUE roucr. IT IS TOO LATE. NOW that partics are arrayed against each other upon this cver-cxciting and dangerous subjcct, who can contemplate, without deep regret, the bad feeling which must necessarily enyie if it be left an open question, giving

bill.

SOME BILL giving governments to these Territories. It-is in the power of this House to remove, to a great extent, the exciting question of slavery forever from the national councils, by transfering it to the limited and less dangerous sphere of the people immediately interested in its decision.—

am ready to record my vote and that vote, sir, shall be consistent with the position I have occupied upon this question from the beginning it shall be consistent with the love 1 bear for freedom and the free institutions of my native State it shall be in conformity with what I believe to be the wishes of a large majority of those to whose kindness and partiality I am indebted for a seat in this national House of Representatives it shall accord with my understanding of the constitution of the country, and the rights of the several States, and shall be in strict conformity with the great cardinal principles of the democratic party— the political party, sir, of my father and my father's father—a love of whose creed constituted a goodly portion of my patrimony, and has guided my political action thus far in life.

It is well known, Mr. Chairman, that the House bill, in the shape it was introduced, did not meet with my entire approval. I took the liberty, upon the occasion of its introduction, to state some of my objections, and to call the attention of my constituents to the subject. I did not speak of these objections as being vital in their character, nor did I present them with an over degree of confidence. They seemed to me to be well founded, and further reflection has tended to confirm me in that belief.— Amendments were subsequently made in the Senate, which, in the main, removed the objections then presented. The boundaries were made to conform precisely with the proposition I had the honor to submit from the minority of the Committee on Territories and the principles of the other amendment submitted by me upon that occasion were also, to a great extent incorporated in the bill sent to us from the Senate, which is now proposed as a substitute to the House bill by my friend from Illinois. The act of Congress known as the Missouri Compromise is but a law, and subject, like other laws, to be altered, amended, or repealed, at any time, by the same power which enacted it. Still, I did not propose in my amendment to repeal it, but simply to repeal so much, AND SO MUCH ONLY, of every existing law as conflicted with the right of the people to self-government and,

soil, and condition, and most conducive to' their happiness and welfare. Except in reference to who shall be entitled to the rights of suffrage, I infinitely prefer the Senate to the House bill and when in these remarks I speak in favor of.

tion but whenever my vote will secure the

thing,) repeals all laws either establishing:

ted by the regular law-making power. I

fruitful material for mischief to that class the constitution, of men whose very life-blood consists of to support, I am agitation? a to acquiesce in it in letter and in spirit. If

Sir, the flame which has been kindled we differ as to the legal effect of the conought to be speedily extinguished, and, in stitution, there is, happily, provided a sumy judgment, that can NOW best be ac-! perior tribunal to which the question can complished by the IMMEDIATE PASSAGE of appropriately be referredt and by that de-

I of course prefer my own proposi-

best attained by the speedy passage of some that slavery can have no legal existence in bill. Let us, at all events organize the these Territories without territorial laws to

us, at all events organize

Territories, And get the question out of that end being first passed, unless it is unCongress. I am decidedly in favor of giv-

The Senate bill, as it cow stands, (or ]y shown, I think, that this doctrine has the pending amendment, which is the same

cision I am prepared to stand I want no better platform than the constitution of my country, and will abide by it, no matter how great the outside pressure, or what the personal consequences to myself.

It is a question, however, of very considerable importance, whether under the

SHALL IT BE DONE? THAT, AFTER ALL, IS Senate bill slavery can legally exist in Ne- thirty States. In fifteen of them there was THE MATERIAL QUESTION—one which, I am braska or Kansas without positive territo- slavery in fifteen slavery did not exist.—• now satisfied, ought to be promptly and rial enactment. It is a question which How can it be argued, upon the other side, emphatically answered—and, for one, I presses itself particularly upon the atten-j that the fifteen slave States, by the operation of gentleman who expect to go before tion of the constitution of the United States, the people of the free States in defence of carried into the ceded country their instithis measure and I know it will be regard- jtution of slavery, any more than it can be ed with anxious concern by my constitu- argued, upon the other side, that by the ents, as I believe it will be by the citizens, operation of the same constitution, the fifof Indiana generally. jteen free States carried into the ceded ter-

further, to confer and dectare that right in dence of God, some day cease to exist in an amendment to this bill of some celebrity, the most unequivocal terms. this country, I have always believed: nor [Mr. BADGER,] in speaking to the question Whatever may have been my views in can I doubt that its existence in the United whether the laws in force in the territory reference to other points involved, I have States will, by colonization and otherwise, acquired from Mexico were superseded by never had a doubt as to the propriety of be made, under Divine Providence, a means the operation of the constitution of the Unithe right of the citizens of every of christianizing, civilizing, and regenerat- ted States, so far as slavery is concerned, organized State and Territory to shape and ing the whole African race—now but one gave it as his opinion that "these laws were regulate their domestic institutions, under degree removed from the brute creation. I not repealed by any silent and necessary the constitution, in such manner as they But I return to the question more imme- operation of the constitution, and that they might deem best suited to their climate, diately under consideration, and shall en-1 continue until the conqueror until the deavor to show that, under the Senate bill,

thc passage of a bill, I mean a bill contain- further, that the measure is just and proper .tion of the correctness of this opinion, ing the principles indicated in my minority

report, or imbodying the leading features democratic principles and the genius of our materially lessened by the fact that it was of the one sent to us from the Senate, and republican institutions. claimed by some that slavery in the terrinow proposed as a substitute to the Housel Jn considering the first position, I shall tory spoken of was prohibited by a Mexi-

not

ing foreigners who may emigrate to these United States—a doctrine which has never Territories the same privileges which they for

(been

crn

or prohibiting slavery in the Territories decisions of several of the southern courts, and no such law can exist unless it is crea-

am not prepared, therefore, to say that it jaw authors who have written upon the subdiffers very materially from my proposition,' jeet. since the grand object I had in view was The gentlemen who maintain this doctrine have been called upon in vain to point out that clause in the constitution which

to leave the people free to decide the ques tion for themselves in the mean time giving ^slavery jio legal existence, unless first gives "a certain constitutional motive power to slavery, by which it immediately spreads over any country, at least for a certain class of persons, as soon as it is acquired by the

established by a law of the Territorv. If the people want the institution of slavery, they may adopt it but, until it adopted, where would be the authority to United States," and would be there proteclegally hold a slave? Am I told it would ted until the Territory was formed into a be found in the constitution of the United I State government. I believe it is not claimStates? If that be true, the retention of. ed as an EXPRESS provision of the consiituthe Missouri Compromise until the people tion, but as an IMPLIED right, necessary to 1

my own as to show the opinions of em-

passage of any reasonable bill, it will not inent jurists and statesmen who have exbe withheld. The crisis will justify con-' amined the subject, and have expressed iBtGHT, and en DO other ground, and the cessions as to minor issues. I want peace views in relatiou thereto in which I con- constitution being the HIGHEST law of the and harmony, and think that these can be

Cur.

A DEMOCRATIC FAMILY NEWSPAPER-,-DEVOTED TO POLITICS, NEWS, MISCELLANEOUS LITERATURE, MECHANIC ARTS, &C.

VOLUME 5. CRAWFORDSViLLE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, I MX, JUNE 3, 1854. NO. 48.

to ALL sections, and in strict conformity with The force of this authority will not be

so much aim to enter into an argument!

the operation of the constitution of the

enjoy in my own State, and am not prepar- tion of the North, and, as far as I know, ed to say 1 could vote for any measure fai]s far short of being the general sentiwliich gave them less. I

ment

moment been entertained by any por-

of the South. It can be conclusive-

discarded by some of the ablest south-

statesmen that it is in conflict with the

and aiso

as wejj as

of the courts of the United States,

Sir, they are a people who have always ritories the principle of freedom which they, acted with strict fidelity to the constitution from policy, have chosen to adopt within and the rights of all the States making it their limits?" their proud boast that, in duty and respect to the different sections of our common country, they know "no North, no South, no East, no West—nothing but the constitution and the Union."

As a community, they have no sickly States, there is a right, on the part of every sentimentality upon the subject of slavery slaveholder of this country, to carry slaves they do not forget that it existed in all the

States at the formation of the general gov-' do not believe or admit,) what more does the ernment, and that where it exists now it' senator want?" "Does he wish ihe constituis a matter of necessity rather than of tion to be re-enacted? Can the parapwunt choice they believe, as a general thing, authority be strengthened by an act of suborthat negroes are but little better off in a dinate power?" state of Freedom at the North than they He went on to 9ay that he could not are in a state of slavery in the South they agree to an amendament which assumed, have by an unprecedented majority exclud- in point of law, that under the constitution ed the whole black race from coming into

(of

their borders by constitutional provisions, carry slaves into the Territories. He deand, as far as I know, there is not at this clared, in most emphatic language, that he time one negro in the whole county where could vote .for no such proposition. I reside. If a slave escapes into Indiana, If I am not mistaken, the same sentiment we give him up promptly to his master was advanced on the floor of the Senate, not because it affords us pleasure to do so, March 8, 1850, by another distinguished but because it is a right secured to the master by the constitution and the laws of the country, which it is our duty, as good citizens, to obey. WE DO NOT LIKE THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY NEITHER IN ITS MORAL, SOCIAL, NOR POLITICAL BEARING BUT CON-

SIDER THAT IT is A MATTER WHICH, LIKE ALL be revived in either, or in any part of either, OTHER DOMESTIC AFFAIRS, EACH ORGAXIZED without positive enactment, I am ready to COMMUNITY OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED TO DECIDE FOR ITSELF. This I know to be the sentiment of my constituents as I believe it is of nine tenths of the people of Indiana.— We have free institutions, and are happy

and prosperous, and it is natural that our considers slavery purely a creature of musympathies should be in favor of freedom. nicipal law that it would not be carried Whilst we intend to act in perfect good into Nebraska and Kansas by the operation faith towards our brethren of the South, we of the constitution alone, and that it can do not conceal that we ardently hope that have no legal existence there "without slavery may not be extended and this, I positive enactment." believe, is a sentiment common to all the I Still another distinguished senator and free States. That slavery will, in the provi- constitutional lawyer, who is the author of

Upon another occasion, during the same session, Mr. Soule contended for the constitutional right to carry slaves into the Territories. Mr. Clay replied: "If, by the constitution of the United

(into

can

It will be conceded upon all hands farcd, would have superseded the law

the opinion of nearly all eminent

paramount law. I this claim was considered by one of the

If the South possess any such right under most eminent southern statesmen this coun"

when

the ceded territories, (which I certainly

southern senator, now the "observed of all observers" in in this hall. Upon that occasion the great Missouri senator said: "Believing in what I have said from the beginning, that slavery is extinct in New Mexico, and in all California, and cannot

vote them governments, without any provision upon the subject of slavery." Whatever may be the views of that distinguished gentleman as to the propriety of passing this bill, I cannot doubt but he

United States

acting

slavery can have no legal existence unless' department of the government shall think the legislature, chosen by the citizens of the Pr0Per cither to repeal or modify those Territory, give it being by legal enactment l^ws or to commit to some subordinate that it is scarcely possible the people of, legislative authority the power of doing it these Territories will ever so decide. And,

'avr which would remain in force until

repealed because the right to hold slaves there being claimed as a CONSTITUTIONAL

Mexico had such been in force, which was a disputed point. During the present discussion the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. FRANKLIN de-

The gentleman from Mississippi, HARRfs,J in his late speech said: "Between ycrtf and me, Mr. Chairman,

PXbr

which we have all sworn try has ever produced, In a speech made the opinion prevails extensively North and cal law forbidding slavery. Sow if th bound, as a good citizen, in the Senate, February 5, 1850, Mr. Clay South."

1»

"Now, really, I must say, that the idea.ded much further. that to instanti, upon the consummation of As far as I know, it is the universal senthe treaty, the constitution of the United timent at the North that slavery is not auStates spread itself over the acquired ter- thorized by any natural or underwritten ritory, and carried along with it the institu- law, and can only legally exist bv positive tion of slavery, is so irreconcilable with any enactment it is a creature of the municipal comprehension, or any reason which I law only. The same opinions are enterpossess, that I hardly know how to met it. tained by leading gentlemen of the South, Why, sir, these United States consist of as I have already shown \11 law writers,

the United States there was a right to adopt the institution? Let any one point

through the legislative

Ver7

strong convic-

clared that under this bill "there can be no knowledge, when he purchased her from slavery in this territory, either by natural law or by the constitution of the United States, until the legislature of that Terri tory by law admits it."

adduced arguments touching this point But, sir, my time will not admit of furth- it wendd have overridden the local law of the which, I believe, have never been success- er quotations touching this point. What I, Territory." fully answered, and are unanswerable.— hare produced has been entirely drawn Among other things, he said: I from southern sources, and might be exten-

I believe, maintain the same doctrine, and

it has been so held by several of the southern courts. As examples, it is laid down in Martin's Louisiana Reports, pages 402 and 403, that "THE RELATION OP OWNER AND SLAVE IS, in the States of the Union in which it has a legal existence, A CREATURE OF MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS.

In 2d Marshall's Kentucky Reports, 470, it is laid down that slavery exists only "by positive laic of a municipal character, without foundation in the laics of Nature, or the un derwritten and common law." And in a celebrated case in the Supreme Court of the United States, (Priggrs. the State of Pennsylvania, see Peter's Digest, vol. 2, page 610,) it was laid down, "that the state of slavery is deemed, to be a mere municipal regulation, founded upon, and limited to, the range of the territorial law."

As the bill now stands, all laws in relation to slavery, of every description whatever, (except in reference to slaves escaping from their masters into the Territory,) are repealed. If, therefore, slavery exists only by virtue of municipal law, and if all existing laws in relation to it are repealed by this bill, how can slaves be legally held in these Territories unless the people first

out the authority which would authorize it. Why, the very presumption of the law would be against the master, and in favor of the freedom of the slave for it has been held by the circuit court of the United States, (seventh circuit,) that where slavery is not expressly established bylaw, every person, without distinction of color, is presumed to be free, (2d McLean's Reports, page 607.) In the same case, it was declared by Judge McLean, that "slavery is local in its character. It depends upon the muncipal law of the State where it is established. And if a person held in slavery go beyond the jurisdiction where he is so held, and into another sovereignty where slavery is not tolerated, he becomes free."

It will be borne in mind that I am speaking of-a case where the owner would voluntarily remove into Nebraska or Kanksa to reside with his negroes, to hold as slaves, and not to any other. The case of a slave escaping from his master, and fleeing into one of these Territories, is altogether different, for that is a case expressly provided for by the constitution of the United States and the laws of Congress.

Before leaving this subject, I will refer to one other decision, not only because it is in point, and was decided in a slave State, (Kentucky,) but because it originated in part in the Territory of Indiana, and the parties to the transaction will be remembered by many persons now living in that State. One of them, Robert Todd, was a landholder in the immediate neighborhood where I reside, and his name will be familar to many of my constituents. I refer to a case which will be found in 2rd Marshall's Kentucky Reports, page 70. I will first read a short recital of the facts upon which the case is founded: "Lydia was born a slave in Kentucky in the year 1805 and belonged to John Warrick, a citizen of this State, who removed hence, in the year 1807, to the late Territory of Indiana, where he settled shortly after the 10th of September of that year, together with Lydia and her mother, whom he took with him, and whom he kept until the 6th of December, 1814, when he sold his right to Lydia, in that Territory, to Thos. Miller, likewise a resident there, who sold her to Robert Todd, a citizen and resident of Kentucky, who brought her to Kentucky, and sold her to John W. Rankin, who still holds her as a slave for life, she being a person of color, and he having had

Todd, of the foregoing facts. O O On this state of the case the court decided Lydia ta be free: "In deciding the question," said the [Mr. court, "we disclaim the influence of the general principles of liberty which we all admire, and conceive it ought to be de-

the constitution don't carrv a slave any-jcidedbv the law as it is, and not a3 it lat"re.

where except it be a runawav, and it does should be. Slavery is sanctioned by the entitled to legislate upon thi3 subject TOtake him back from a free State to his mas-1 laws of this State, and the right to hold

ter in a slave State. There is law for that.1 them under our municipal regulations is capacity of a State Legislature/ But, sir, in a Territory, from the face of unquestionable. But we view this as aright jre

which all law has been swept, in what way existing by positive law of a municipal chardoes the constitution protect slavery?— acier, vAihout foundation in the law of NnThere must be local regulation to enable lure, or the unwritten and common law. If, you to invoke the constitution. Is the con- by the positive provisions in our code, we stitution to keep a marshal there to prevent can and must hold our slaves in the one the 6lave who may be carried there from ease, and statutory provisions eqaully possetting up for himself? If Nebraska is to itive decide against that right in the other, remain free of local law relative to slavery, and liberate the slave, he must, by an aulike an island fresh risen from the sea, and thority eqaully imperious, be deculredfree. two men—a black man and a white man— It has justly been said, in referance to this find themselves there, will the constitution case, by a senator from Wisconsin, (Mr. A CLASSIC.—You are wrong. Homer's decide which is the master and which is the WALKER) "that the slaves were taken to the Odyssey and the Russian Odessa are not slave? I confess I should feel that there Ir. liana Territory UNDER LOCAL LAWS PER- the same place. Odessa is on the Black would be some ground to apprehend that MITTING IT and yet the court decided tbey Sea. For the situation of Homer's Odysthc black roan might turn the tables upon became free by virtue of the ordinance of sey—so called from being the birth-placc mc." "I undertake to say that 17 87 but that was nothing more than a lo- of the poet—^oasujt the map. ---w

:stitution makes slavery apolitical inslit

That thefe may be no room to dotibt that I have correctly stated the operation of thd Senate bill, 1 will give the exact language o( that portion of it which has a bearing upod the points I have introduced. It reads as folows "That the constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapj plicable, shall have the same force and efj feet within the said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the net preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union approved March 6, 1820, which, being inconsistent with the principle of nonj intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognised by the legislation of 1850, commonly called tho compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void it being the true intent and meaning of this act nol to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, not to exclude it therefrom, but 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: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in forcer any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the net of 6th March, 1820, either protecting, -establishing, prohibiting, of abolishing slavery."

I think, then, Mr. Chairman, that it i» clear, beyond the possibility of doubt, that UNDER THIS BIIL, as it will stand if the proposed substitute be adopted, slavery cannui legally exist, either in Nebraska or Kansas, unless the people themselves first legislate it into being through the regular!y-constituted law-making power of the Territory.

At last, sir, the great and vital question at ii-sue is, whether Lhe people of the Terriries shall be left to settle for themselves the institutions under which they are to live and even this issue may be flarowed down to the isolated question whether a man because ho' happens to live in a Territory, is less worthy of being intrusted with ALL the rights and privileges of an American freeman than hi^ more foftnnate brother .who happens to live in a State. Who will deny that, after thesu Territories shall be organized into States, they would have the clear and undisputed right, if they saw proper to do so, to establish slavery—and this in spite of all the Missouri compromises and Wilmot porisoes which could be passed? But few even would deny them the right to be admitted, "with or without slavery, as their constitutions at the time might prescribe and certainly they' would have unlimited power over the sub^ ject after their admission as free and independent Stales.

Then sir, what becofnes of the oft-repeat-ed declaration that slavery in these Territories is forever prohibited by the act known as the Missouri Compromise? Can a congressional provision of that kind bind a sovereign State? Why, sir, who believes any such doctrine? Might not the people of Virginia abolish slavery in that State, and the people of Pennsylvania adopt it, if they saw proper to do so. And have the new States any less political rights than the old ones? Is not this a confederacy of States possessing equal rights under the constitution? Can one be restrained in the exercise of political power, and another not? Why, sir, this is no longer a mooted question. It has been decided in the Supreme Court of the United States in several instances thffi a restriction of the kind would not be binding after the organization of a State govern-' ment. (See 3:1 Howard, pagcs212 and 580 also, 10th Howard, page 82.) Even my repsected colleagues, who have spokerr against this bill, [Messrs. MACE and CHAM-., BERLAIN,] do not object to that clause which declares that these Territories, when they apply for admission as SLates, "shall btf received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constituents may prescribe at the time of their admission." As far as I know, the entire delegation concur in it, nor do I believe ft is onjected to by any considerable number upon this floor. "Forever," then, as Used in the Missouri restriction and Wilmot proviso, even according to the views of these gentlemen,does not mean FOREVER in a legal or a literal sense but only until such time as ther people shall form a State government, and decide this question for themselves.

Now I leave to my worthy colleagues,and those with whom they act upon this occasion, to show why the people, through their representatives in a Territorial Legis-

are not a9

DA1

a.s

competent and as much

samc

a rG

Pe°P'e would be TO-MOR-

^1°

rods of each other, but one on the Kar»as skle and the other on the Missouri they are endowed with equal inteliigence, and alike interested in all that pertains to government and society—noW, what kind of justice is that which denies to one that voice in framing the laws of his country whieh is freely enjoyed by the other? (CONCLUDED NEXT WEEK.)

the coti•

institutiont