The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-03-01

second part as acknowledging 10 be property, by
taxing them such under the character OF slaves
| Then followed "Mr King, and Mr. Langdon considered
this as the price of the first part General Pnckney add
mitted that il was SO. Thus showing that while one
party preferred the word persons, the other did OBJ
Iect when It was accompanied with dIing clause also
But, Mr.. Chairman although honorable gentlemen who
have lately participated in this debate, have not shown
sufficient respect TO the constitution read anything
from which toerates this proposition which they make.
one honorable gentleman who participated in this debate
az an ne, early period o. the session MT Prrrrr contend
thorzes Congress to make all needfu rules and regula
ions respecting the territory Of the United States there
contained the power to regulate slavery and to pro-
hibt the Importation of slaves into this territory Now
MIR. Chairman, know the impotence with which the
committee always listen to arguments in regard to
stutional questions shall not therefore, proceed elab-
oraely to discuss them But sir be supposed for
one moment that IT entered the conceptions Of
the wise men who framed the constitution that those
words "needfu regulations" would be construed to a-
thoze the prohibiting from carrying slave prop
eriy into the territories OF the United States, when
they contended so strenuously, ably, and zeaously,
for the doctrine of the constitution recognising
slaves as property, and protecting them Can this
be true OF the men who said the Union should
not be formed if they even permitted to import
slaves Tor twenty years? Is possible that they ever
supposed that under these words needfu regulations
respecting territory slavery could be confined within the
limits where it then existed, and that should pac
caly be deprived of our property by being prohibited
from carrying it into territory won by our common pa
triosm, treasure, and blood? No, sir; never entered
into their conceptions Were wise men who defend
ed so ably southern rights wide awake the subject of
their slave property, when all other clauses dis
cussed but asleep when this inserted Did they not
"needfu" synonymous with the word sexpedient or ju
dlcous" Or rather do not photographers define it TO
mean necessary, ndispensabIy requse'n, What is
meant by ''regulations !" Sir the clause of the consu
ton which gives to Congress the power to 'regulQte
commerce., did any suppose that this gave
power to prohibit commerce!
But the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania MIR
THOMPSON the other day, very calmly and dispassion
atey told us, If majority OF Congress were of the
opinion that it ''needful" to prevent citizens from
carrying their slaves into the territories belonging the
United States, Why the doctrine of submission was in
corporated INTO the constitutions and that we ought al
willing to concede the proprey of respectful yielding
on the part of mnorities; but when gentlemen place
strained and unnatural construction upon clause of the
constitutions the tendency of which is to infringe upon
rights, and ultimately to take away property; and
when as the only argument in defence of it, you reply
us, that the doctrine OF submission IS Migrated on the
IT'S rather too heavy draught upon our patience and
philosophy.
Sir, il was said here the other day. that this is not the
"Wamot proviso." When the honorable gentleman
from Mississippi Mr. RoeERTsl was speaking the gen
tleman from New York Mr.. GRovER] almost interrupted
him By denying i to be the Wmot Proviso conenang
Ohio, MIR BRINKERHoFF.l yesterday affirmed, with
great deal of zeal and eoquence, with air OF great
triumph that Mr. jefferson counenanced this doctrine
and the honorable gentleman made great flourish here
with The Journals of the Congress OF 1851 Now, in
reply to this, the first remark have TO make is that Mr.
IL
l7siprior to the adoption Of the Constitution But it
be said the very fact that Mr. jefferson
the doctrine OF prohibiting slavery in the territory of the
northwest even then showed that, in his heart he was
opposed to the extension OF slavery will remark that
this was in l7si that since that period. slaves have
gone on increasing, by the paural increase until there
ton, the importation Of slaves allowed for twenty
years longer and, if Mr. Jefferson alive this day.
acquainted with the history of the slaves acquainted with
the history OF the SOUTH acquainted with the nsdous
design and hope ultimately abolish slave property
by contning within narrow limits until an exhausted
soil and crowded population shall make ita burden
and tax nc you'd never for one moment tolerate this
l"Wilmot proposition matter of policy, and certainly
he too well versed in constitutional law to counte-
nance 1t as constitutional right.
That is the to the charge in reference to Mr.
Jefferson and the attempt to lend the sanction of his great
name to this startling proposition to do gross injustice t9
hall OF this Union, in the of philanthropy, but
in the SPIRIT Of misguided fanaticism
But so far from his heart being in the thing, of the
proudest monuments erected to his ameone of the chief
,s,dnd trih arery and ti-savery clause! So that
Mr. Jefferson after de constitution was framed, adorned
his administration by the acquisition Of slave territory,
and lived and died stakeholder himself.
And not only slaves recognised by the contribution
as property. but they recognised in the first treaty
Of peace in 1885 and in our treaty at Client with Great
Britain, an article was Incorporated making express
provision to indemnify those of citizens who lost
their slave propery and if You examine into the journals
OF Congress and the reports of the committees you will
see that bills were reported and passed. appopriang
moneys to those whose slaves were lost And under
stand 1t Is the FACT that Mr. ADAMS, the venerable
Der from Massachusetts, himself introduced that article
into the treaty and ayowed on the floor of Congress-
But know Mr.. Chairman the great importance that
is attached to great names, and is very natural that
gentlemen should desire not only to throw the mantle of
Jefferson the great apostle of liberty" around their
doctrines, but also that of Madison he father of the
constitution" And | heard the gentleman from Ohio
MR. RooT who had the book, say he could read from it,
to show that Mr. Madison, the Congress of 1890, adj
United that Congress had the constitutional right regu
late slavery the Territories; and also the gentleman
from New York mir. RATHBUNl contendcd for il
proposition that could not be disputed. Now, when
heard that announced having, thought, of late form
ed somewhat familiar acquaintance with the opn-
ions of Mr. Madison, | nevertheless felt little APP
prehensive that something in his writings had escaped
my attention, and that the gentleman had found Mr.
Madison as n potential authority their side
Sir took the liberty Of reading the book myself and
the speech and page referred to by the gentleman and
according to my construction. the honorable gentleman
has entirely mistaken MIR. Madisons meaning
II was upon petition introduced into the Congress OF
1870, that the question discussed by many gentle
men, and among others by Mr.. Madison, of the cons
tuona power OF Congress TO interfere with the subject
OF slavery but more particularly what is called and I'M
dersoo1 as the slave trade" the subiec-na of
discussion WE'LL it is perfectly well known by gentle
men, that that is question totally distinct from the ques
ton OF our domestic slavery But here the part OF the
speech OF Mr.. Madison alluded to by the gentleman
from Ohio and the gentleman from New York. The in
elgen reader can place the proper construction upon it,
according to his own judgment
MIR. Madison says
'The petition prayed in general terms for the inerfer
ence of Congress, far they consttuonaly
horzcd bnt If its prayer degree uncon-
stutonal IL might he committed, the Mr..
Churchman'S petition, part which was supposed
apply for unconstitutional interference by the general
government He admitted that Congress is restricted by
the constitution from taking measures to abolish the sav