State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1831-1836, 1836-03-29

part Of doing and saying what is right, | ncl.
thcr have nor can entertain any doubt.
With me sir, it does not admit of ques
ton, that the petitioners believe, sincerely be-
lievo, that to profess 10 think that The honor OF
the country, the prosperity Of the country, the
best and highest interests of liberty and hu-
mainly, are involved in this question. Ifthey
are wrong in their opinions, or express them
with too much boldness and independence,
the fault, if it be one, is TO be found in the
institutions of the country i'm the civil
and political principles of the country
in the education of the country. 1t is
from these sources that the petitioners have i'm
hbcd THEN opinions, as well as the spirit
which prompts them, to express them with
manly freedom; and, sir, you cannot by any
law you can make, or by any vote which may
here be given, rcpress or restrain the free cX-
preston of their opinions, any more than you
can stop or check, by legal enactment, or le-
gal coercion, the course and current Of their
thoughts. 1t would be unwse 10 attempt to do
so. We should rather treat them as they have
heretofore been treated. We should resort TO
no extraordinary measures. We SHOULD OBJ
serve the ordinary rules and usases Of his
body, and permit the petitions, as usual, 10 90
TO committee This is not only the just con-
stltutional course, but the course, in my opin
ion, onjoined upon us by every consideration
Of policy, as well as Of duty.
Sir, upon the constitutional question, whoth-
er Congress has the power to abolish slavery
in this District, we had, some days ago, a very
compact luminous, and ineligible argument
from the Senator from Virginia and from the
known ability and habits of close and thor
ough research Of the Senator, we have a right
to presume, and, indeed, must presume, that
every consideration was presented, in support
| - IF t,,, oh fl,a Oh -
tible. Although the lucid simplicity the exact
and eloquent brevty ofhs style and req sonng,
interested and charmed me much, the Senator
must pardon me if say thathis argument fall
ed TO convince me.
Two propositions were relied upon as the
principal basis of the argument. 1t was in
sisted first, that the act Of cession Of Virgin
ia expressly interdlcted the exercise of the
power by Congress.
The act, after ceding the territory, and re-
! lnquishing TO the United States "absolute
right and exclusive jurisdiction over it," pro-
vidcs " that nothing herein contained shall be
construed to vest in the rights Of individuals
therein, otherwise than the same shall or may
be transferred by such individuals TO the Uni
ted States"
This clause, which was evidently inserted
in the act from abundant caution, was intend
ed TO define and ascertain, with more exact
precision, the subject matter Of the grant, and
TO preclude, by express negative words the
| possibility of ITS being construed TO transfer
any right or interest in the soil itself This is
not only the grammatical reading but the nat
ural and plain sense OF the clause; and giving
TO it its utmost import and extent, it is mani
fest that it imposes no limi alton or restriction
whatever upon the legislation of Congress.
II was further insisted that, independent Of
the proviso in the act of cession, Congress did
not possess, and could not exercise, the power
in question. 1t was said that neither the Leg
islature Of Virginia nor tha ofMaryl6nd had
any power to abolish the right of property, and
| that they could not grant or transfer to Con.
gress power they did not themselves pos
sess
Sir, the competency of the Legislature Of
Virginia and Maryland to cede the territory,
and relinqulsh TO the United States full and
absolute jurisdiction over it, is not, and pre-
sumo will not, be denied; aud it appears from
the act of Virginia that jurisdiction was sur
rendered TO the United States, 10 be held and
exercised "plrSuant," as the act expresses it,
" to the eighth section Of the frs, article Of The
Constitution Of the United StGtes." That Sec
ton, it will be seen, confers upon Congress
Exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever"
over the territory. When the Jurisdiction of
Virginia and Maryland ceased, the jurisdiction
of the United States commenced and the
question, whether Congress can abolish slavery
IN this District, depends, not upon any powers
granted to II by the Legislatures Of Virginia
and Maryland, for they could grant none, but
upon the powers given to it by the Conslitu-
ton of the United States.
The Constitution, as we have already seen,
gives to Congress Exclusive legislation in all
cases whatsoever over the Dstrict-powcrs
as large and extensive as could well be confer
red, and probably as full and absolute as be-
long TO the Legislatures Of any Of the States.
Congress, then, in its local legislation for this
District, must have at least as ample power
ovor slavery within its limits as any State Lee
Sislature possesses, or can exercise, over slave
ry in any Of the States.
Sir, hold and | suppose il will not be de-
MED, that the law Of the land is the founda-
ton OF all rights OF property. They exist only
by and under the law, and cannot exist indie
pendent Of it. They may be said to owe their
origin and existence to the Legislature. This
is literally and peculiarly the case with respect
10 the right of property in slaves. No such
right, il IS well known, is recognized, or even
tolerated, by the common law. Ii is true that
century and half ago the court Of common
pleas in England adjudgcd that trorer would
lie for negro boy, "because," said the court,
"they tCere heaihens, and therefore man might
haze property IN them" But, in subsequent
case, few years afterwards. in The Kings
Bench, it was determined by The whole court
that trOrer would not lie for a negro any more
than for any other man, "lor, by the common
Iaw,' said Lord Holt, "no man can have a
property in another"
In all the States where slavery exists, the
right Of property in slaves must be derived
from positive enacimcnts OF the Legislature