A.—I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the RIGHT and DUTY of Congress to prohibit slavery in all of the United States’ Territories.
Q. 7.—I desire him to answer, whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any new territory, unless slavery is first prohibited therein?
A.—I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory; and in any given case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition, according as I might think such acquisition would or would not aggravate the slavery question among ourselves.
“Now, my friends, it will be perceived upon an examination of these questions and answers, that so far, I have only answered that I was not pledged to this, that, or the other.
The judge has not framed his interrogatories to ask me anything more than this and I have answered in strict accordance with the interrogatories, and have answered truly, that I am not pledged at all upon any of the points to which I have answered. But I am not disposed to hang upon the exact form of his interrogatories. I am rather disposed to take up, at least some of these questions, and state what I really think upon them.
“The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In relation to that, I have my mind very distinctly made up. I should be very glad to see slavery abolished in the District of Columbia. I believe that Congress possesses the constitutional power to abolish it. Yet, as a member of Congress, I should not, with my present views, be in favor of endeavoring to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, unless it should be upon these conditions: First, That the abolition should be gradual; Second, That it should be on a vote of a majority of qualified voters in the District; and Third, That compensation should be made to unwilling owners. With these three conditions, I confess I would be exceedingly glad to see Congress abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the language of Henry Clay, ‘sweep from our Capital that foul blot upon our nation.’
I now proceed to propound to the judge the interrogatories, so far as I have framed them. I will bring forward a new instalment when I get them ready. I will bring now only four. The first one is:—
1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a State Constitution and ask admission into the Union under it before they have the requisite number of inhabitants, according to the English bill—some ninety-three thousand—will he vote to admit them?
2. Can the people of the United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?
3. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, adopting and following such decision as a rule of political action?