Jasper Banner, Volume 1, Number 48, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 January 1855 — Remarks of Tom Benton. [ARTICLE]

Remarks of Tom Benton.

_—Dan Mace's movement in relation to the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, must have produced no little sensation in the House. His speech has riot yet been received, but we have read the replies of 6sevcral of the members, among which is the following of Tom Benton. Tom is a very clever man, and a great Statesman, but has become too strongly identified with the “peculiar institution,” ever to make a President •that will answer the demands of the progressive spirit of the age. We give his remarks, however, m order that Old Bullion may be set Tight upon the record. It will be seen that Benton endorses the policy sometimes adopted, of “biting offyour nose to spite your face.” We prefer the policy of St. Paul, where he writes to the Romans: “shall we do evil that good may come? God forbid.” Lafayette Courier. Mr. Chairman: The member from Indiana (Mr. Mice) who made the speech and gave notice of the motion to bring in the bill which gave declaring that it was his intention to restore things to what they were twelvemonths ago—-to restore the harmony of feeling in this Hdusc. and in the country, to what it was at the conclusion of the last session, of Congress. This is a good intent, and the man who can accomplish it will justly be entitlcd to the character of a public bcnePactor; but J do not think the measure he proposes will accomplish this purpose; on the •contrary, may make matters worse which are bad enough. What are his measures? They arc, first, to repeal the clause in the Kansas Nebraska act which abolished the Missouri Compromise line; secondly, to oppose the admission of the State of Kansas into the Union if she presents herself as a slaveholding State. Now, I do not think either of these measures advisable, even if practicable; and will give my reasons for that opinion. With respect to the first one, I do not think it could be passed at this session, and its agitation could only disquiet the settlers in Kansas, and perhaps retard its population; and with me, the rapid settlement of the territory is an overruling consideration, as promoting, the construction of the central road to the Pacific, and as giving protection to emigrants now traveling through the wild domain, without a road of any kind-made by the government, and exposed to murders and robberies, which the United States military posts can neither prevent nor avenge. The present agitation of the repeal could, therefore, effect no repeal, and might have a bad effect upon the settlement of the territory, and consequently upon the contemplated road apd upon the facilities

due to the emigrants. And these con siderations, I think, mightfiisposc, ■ofithe Snotion for the present session. At the next, 1 think it will be superseded by events —that Kansas will be ripe for a state government, and be demanding admission into the Union. The member from Indiana th’en proposes to resist the admission if she has established slavery. This, in holding as 1 do, that the state will be entitled to admission (having the i other requisites) with or without sla--1 very, as she pleases. And this not I by virttic of any act of Congress to that effect, nor even by virtue of the I Constitution—-I mean aft inherrent right of state sovereignly, possessed before the constitution was made, not surrendered to the federal government when it was made; and, therefore, restrained by the states; add to this a treaty right to theusamc eli’ect. Kansas is <t part of the farmer province of Louisiana, acquired ' by Mr? Jefferson, and has a right under- that treaty to be incorporated in the Union as soon as it can be done according to the principles of the federal constitution. The third article of the treaty is explicit to that effect. The right of the State to admission will be absolute, under her sovereignty and the treaty without any regard to her constitution in relation to slavery. Mr. Chairman, there was criminaI lion and recrimination, the other day, on this subject between tti<F“ffieinber -f WW a4u4iaiia*aiid..jny:x.all£ngiie from the Northwest District, (Mr. Oliver.) The member from Indiana charged that citizens of Missouri had crossed the line to vote in Kansas at the late delegate election. I believe both avere about right; and as to this stimulated emigration, I had my opinion ofit at the time it was announced, and made known that. some members of the eastern states now present; and that it would produce precisely the effect that has been seen—rouse and exasperate the, people of the Missouri frontier, and lead to the scenes, which have jpccurrcd. -Why did I think so? Because 1 human nature, -nnJthat foreigrr -rnterfermree is - A' thing which it will not endure. Of this, Missouri has been once before a signal instance. At the time of the formation of the constitution, it was a question among the people whether the constitution should be express or silent on the subject of slavery. Foreign interference decided that question, and occasioned, a clause to be introduced prohibiting 'the legislature to emancipate slaves without the consent of the owners. 1, an enemy to the extension of slavery, was a chief promoter of that clause. And why? Because foreigners, tlicits, citizens other had interfered and agitated the country and filled it with a great disturbance; and for the sake of peace, and to prevent the annual occurrence of such , agitations, 1 deemed it best, (and thaj became the opinion of the convention) to cut up the evil by the root—to take the subject away from the legislature—and consequently to exclude it from our elections, which was done. And the state, under that constitutional inhibition, had been free from, the slavery agitation until carried there in the year 1849; and 1 further inflamed by the events of the past year. I was not a member of the convention which framed the constitution, but promoted the antiemancipatioh clause, and I mention my own case particularly that being opposed to the extension of slavery, I yet instigated w a provision against emancipation, to prevent foreigners from coining against us; and I verily believe, if it had not been for that influence, the constitution would have been silent on that subject. T’his is an instance of the effects of foreign interference in the same state, and on the same subject; and what is now taking place on the Western frontier of that state is only a new manifestation of the feeling which prevailed in the year 1820? And such is human nature, and in all relations of life { both as individuals and communities. A stranger cannot interfere in a family dispute without uniting state against him.— What has in Kansas, was obliged to happen, and was foreseen by some and deprecated at the time. I condemned that society emigration at the time; and there are members now present to whom I foretold its bad effects, such as have been seen by everybody. If any emigrants came from the ’free states

in the usual way, they would be kind; ly received; but, sent by societies, jthev would meetvvith ill will and opposition. And I think the recrimination of my colleague is but n fair j set-off to the crimination of the mem- ’ her from Indiana, and this is all I have to Say confining myself, as 1 do, to the two measures propo-fil by the member from Indiana, and condemning th e remedies, while applauding Ills desire to cure the disease, his ■ desire to put an end to agitation, and ; restore the House and the country to the happy state of tranquility and fraternal feeling Which prevailed twelve months ago, and which has been so lamentably, and, I fear, so durably impaired.