Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1845-03-22

Constitution for its examination That Constitution was now
before them contained provisions which had been the sub
ject of here He had remark submit
the motion to strike out two of its clauses He be per-
med declare his utter dissent sm the doctrine that Con-
Cress had nothing INQUIRE but whether the State pre-
scented republican form Of government they had
thing else to do II their right and their duty inquire
into the provisions Of The Constitution submitted hem and
see whether they any OF them al with the Constr
tuition of the United States and if they were then the
duty Of Congress to take the necessary steps have such parts
Of the Constitution erased before the State admitted
Suppose the Constitution should declare that the State Legs
aure should have power TO pass post taco law
law mparng the obligation Of contracts any other equally
against the Contuon of the Union for the Senate TO
say leave all that to the courts Would the honorable
Senator his friend from Virginia for the admission Of
State with such provisions in her Constitution
Mr.. ARCHER. Certainly
Mr.. HUNTINGTON The Senator said he would Mr..
H. must beg leg leave to differ from him. He held it the
duty Of the Senate that the State Constitution not
against the Constitution Of the Union and he held that if
they admitted State with such things its Constitution after
that Constitution had first been submitted to the Senate, they
certainly would sanction all it contained.
Senators said that this Constitution such the State
had right to and not for Congress to say
what sort Of Constitution the State ought or ought
have But discretion left to the Senate Why, then,
her Constitution laid before them No, he insisted that
State presented State Constitution in open conflict with
the Constitution Of the United States they had right to
fuse 10 admit her Was not this sound and lust principle
If then let it be applied the clauses in question
The vessels Of the Northern States frequently had part
of their free cooed sailors citizens Of those States and
was subject of unpleasant feeling and of complaint that
such persons seized and imprisoned in the ports of the
slavehodng States This Constitution expressly empowered
the Florida Legislature pass laws authorizing such seizure
and imprisonment 1t contained another prohibiting the Lee
gsature from emancipang slave.
But said that the clause prohibiting emancipation
misunderstood meant that the Legislature might free
slave without the consent of his master.
Mr.. SEWER explained What be had said, was that UNI
der this Florida Constitution the Shareholder alone author
lied to emancpate
Mr.. HUNTINGTON. The Senator also said that the Con-
situations OF other savehodng States added clause which
not found in this instrument Now, within week two
they had had discussion in that Chamber on clause the
Constitution Of the United States respecting the admission Of
new States into the Union in which Southern gentlemen took
the ground that plain clause like that be taken
Stood and that all conditions restrictions upon but
SO many interpretations the text When the opponents of
annexation insisted adding in substance the words form
ed out of territory belonging the United Saes express
ing the meaning Of the authors Of the instrument gentlemen
cried out loudly that Interpolation. But who inter-
polaed now When the Constitution Of Florida said that the
Legislature should have power emancpae slave they
insisted adding the words "whout the of his
ter" Here Interpolation and construction
In all the other Southern Constitutions where the like prohibit
tons occurred there qualifying clauses appended but
here il was naked and absolute
As to the other clause respecting the passing Of laws
cude free coloed persons from entering the State there
no dispute the meaning 1t affirmed the right Of the Lee
men entering Southern port forbidden to land pain
Of being seized and imprisoned let them with what
lves or for whatever purpose they might Here no in
terpolation, strained construction the meaning plain
and clear And now what asked The insertion of
provso that such law should be passed Not at all Mr.
and those who thought with him believed the laws void
being against the Constitution of the United States all they
asked that they should not be called to affirm that
such laws constitutional That the whole objection.
Was there in this any thing unknd any evidence of dis
position to violate the compromises Of the Constitution Sure
there not Could they not oil harmonously to
leave this open question He hoped the amendment
would pass.
Mr.. BERRIEN said he would gladly have abstaned from
taking any part in this most unpleasant discussion but
awakened feelings which, after his best efforts he unable
suppress He could look at the subject without being
transported to his esde and all the of domes
tic enjoyment which most dear to his affections He
deplored the introduction of the subject for he would gladly
postpone the admission of Florida because, the bill
Stood in passing it the Senate would be sacrificing Southern
rights Here Territory of five hundred miles in extent,
which must have population than sufficient to form two
States Of this Union but the provision that effect had been
stricken out Of the BILL and he repeated that to pass it in
its present shape, sacrificing Southern interests II
running counter rs he personally knew, To the wishes of
majority of the people Of the Territory except ON the sole con-
sderaon Of creating counterpart the admission OF Iowa
But he encountered by propositions of amendment
which assed him in his hone and which struck at his dear
interests The Senator from Maine had moved TO strike
from the proposed Constitution the clause which forbade not
individuals but the Legislature to emancpae slave and
another clause which prohibited the immigration OF free coored
persons into Florida Mr. b. should not shelter himself
der that limited construction Of the Senae power which bad
been put forth by the Senator from Ohio (r ALLEN God
forbid that he should fly TO any such shelter This matter
stood higher ground He did not say that all the Senate
had to do, before admitting State to inquire whe
Their its Constitution exhibited form of republican govern
ment He allowed full play to the exercise of the pow
of the Senate range throughout the Constitution of
the State, and whether they could find there any
clause Of such rghtfully forbid its admission
He fully agreed with the Senator from Connecticut (Mr
HUNTNGToS to the extent of the Senae right in this
respect and he held with him that, if applying State
should upon the threshold that she pass laws
which contrary to the Constitution of the Union, the
Senate had perfect right turn the back Of the hand to her.
and reject her application Notwithstanding her unconstitutional
laws would be void The question: therefore, was, whether
this Constitution of Florida contained in any provision SO
mansty repugnan to the Constitution Of the United States
that the clause must be cxpungcd the State rejected
And he would proceed to inquire how far the two
clauses alluded did did conflict with the Constitution
Of the Union.
And FIRST in regard to the clause which prohibited the Lee
gslatue Of Florida from emancpaing slave Did il nhbit
Mr.. B. from emancipang When it declared that the Lee
gislature should take his property away from him. did
nhb him from doing what he would with his own Those
who lived in slavehong States knew that when State Con-
venton designed prevent individual emancipation, they I'M
oduced clause that effect the Constitution Of the State
and in that individual might emancpate his slave
contained such provision then individual might
cpaie any all of his slaves just he pleased This
the old law maxim, "erpresso uus est ercusio
| aherius."
Mr.. B. said the Senator from Maine that when he at
tempted interfere with the right Of State to regulate the
subject Of slavery, usuped which Congress- had not
No pretended that Congress could interfere with slavery