The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-01-18

friend from Kentucky and his own, as between those Of
his friend from Indiana and his Again, was not
true that the savehoding States, at least OF
them, had complained Of the line of the Missouri com
promise as Withholding, from them equal mciety Of
vacant terrltores' II there was OF complaint
this ground It might be replied that there strong
ground 2r on the part Of the free States Of the north
west That line insulated the free States Of the north
west from the Atlantic IT cut them OIL from the Gull of
Mexico; Il concentrated within the borders of slave
States the vast commercial power Of the gull and Of the
union1a power which has been pIodigiously aug,
| It from the Sabine to the Rio Bravo del Norte
and BY the concession OF that part Of Oregon lying north
OF 40 degrees north latitude to Great Britain, in which all
the elements OF the commercial power of the north Pac
&c harbors timber, NC, exist in combination II il were
possible to contemplate disruption of this Union, what
norhwest' Would it mcknight ii not be subjected to
grevous burdens, in seeking gess and egress through
the gulf coast' Besides would line OF compromise be
Just which would hedge the north BY the wall q British
power in that drecton and open the south indefinite
expansion' Great difficulties must attend any effort Of
compromise; but notwithstanding this fact when the
cessity arose for such measure, MIR. Nee would be
prepared to meet them as became representative of a
liberal and enlightened constituencyin the spirit OF
fairness and ustcein the spirit OF the compromises Of
the constitution itself Since il had become fashionable
| TO drag the question of the abolition OF slavery into
discussion, MIR. McC. would venture few sugges-
ons upon the more s approp.se subject Of smae
9S o w %Rss wild folly ~ and sn msa sa'
abolition OF slavery The project had been mooted to
extent in Illinois. Lei every free State. upon the
adoption OF constitution, authorize the institution
of slavery for limited period, attaching the rights OF the
slaves within their borders ultimate freedom to the
SOIL This arrangement among people migratory as
our own, would draw into the free States great many
lively short period effect the mancpaonlof many slaves
and the poserity of such slaves; at the time it
would contribute to identify great number of slavehold
ers and their poserity with the OF gradual and
peaceabe emancipation Thswas much OF the argu-
men as ne had urged to operate the mnds OF the phi
lanthropic Another argument which had been urged
the ground OF State policy this that although this
measure might involve sacrifice on the part of the old
and popuous States yet to of the States want
ing population, wealth. and labor particularly to deve
with public debt it might be of temporary advantage.
Would the abotioniss be willing try such an expert
men would they be afraid taste the fruits Of sla-
very lest what is bitter in their ancies should become
sweet to their tastes There were streng reasons
against enacng the bill proposed by the gentleman from
New York the amendment which had been offered by
the gentleman from South Carolina First if it was the
object OF that gentleman to etter the treaty making pow
by debating either the admission exclusion of sa
very regard TO the territories conquered from Mexico,
any treaty of peace to be adopted, he could cons
tutonally do So In this respect the treaty making
power, except far it may be dependent upon the law
latter. Again, we hold these territories by force
OF arms; they are yet IN contest and may be Tor
years; is it not unwise and premature then, to
agitate question concerning Them which treaty
! OF peace may render unnecessary and aborlve?
When BEFORE did Congress precede general regulations
for the government OF the territories OF the United States
by single solitary act upon an disractng question
Never; and quite probable they would have
thought of such folly but for the wild and mad spirit
of anatcsm which exists in relation to slavery. As to
the jurisdiction of Congress the question OF slavery
Mr. Nc, was clear and confident in his views He be-
leved that Congress could not constutionaly in any
way interfere with the institutions of slavery in the
slaveholding Sates-because the institution local
and subject alone and exclusively the jurisdiction Of
the States The federal and State governments
1opt tn nth md
all other subjects, not excepted BY the constitution,
any other two governments on the globe In regard to
the Territories Of the United States, the was differ
ent In regard to them the jurisdiction of this govern
ment supreme, and from very obvious principles
The power to acquire territory is an incident to every gov
ernment every government has claimed it, and many OF
them have exercised cases often arise when il becomes
necessary to the very existence of the State itself This
position being established, what follows OF course the
NATURAL necessary, and resulting power to govern the ter
ritory acquired which, being complete power of course
involves the power to determine whether slavery, any
other particular institution shall exist in the territory
What them was the application of this argument to their
institutions Certainly, that this necessary faculty
to acquire and to govern territory exists in some branch
Of their political system-ether IN the States or the
The constitution prohibits it to them several clauses
bearing less upon the subject Did it exist in the
federal government 1t mustexi there, if it exist any
where and that it must exist, has been shown That it
does exist there have the evidence OF the acquisition
of Louisiana and Florida, and most Indian territories by
treaty. and OF Texas by legislative compact and the gov
executed by the President and expeunded by the Supreme
Court II is answer to this argument to say that the
power in question is limited to the power of Congress
to dispose of and make all needful rules and reglatons
respecting the territory other property OF the United
States in the of the constitution Because, If this
power extends beyond the function OF administering
territory as property whether in Territories or Staes
it embraces the power of civil government at all-of
it would well embrace jurisdiction OF slavery in
the territories any other institution This power how
ever the institutions of the territories OF the United
States when these territories come to be States
then Congress only inquire whether they have ga
republican form of government in pursuance OF that pro-
vision of the constitutions which provides that he United
States shall guaranty to every State of this Union re-
publican form of government" The honorable gentle
man concluded by repeating that he would for the
emit vote against any agitation of the question of slavery
believing that such agitation must do harm, and could
not do good.
Mr. RHETT then rose and addressed the House.
[To CONTINUED
nv g. ". BOTELER, Jr., .gmcffoxer.
TNRUSTEE'S SALE OF VALUABLE STOCK OF