Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1848-08-31
Political.
REMARKS OF MIR. MARSH

tires, august 3, 1913, on Sidpcry in
the Territories IF Neto Merico, CdHfor-
MIA and Oreg0n,
Mr. MARSH said THAT throughout the
debate on this important subject, it had been
assumed, that slavery had neither legal nor
an actual existence in Oregon, or the terri
tory acquired by the late Mexican Treaty.
He was not sure that this opinion was well
founded, and he proposed to show, that it
was matter of doubt, whether slavery had
ever been abolished in Oregon, California
or New Mexico, by any legislation which
our courts of law would recognize as valid
and he would thence argue the necessity of
positive prohibition of that institution by
Congress 1t was too notorious to require
historical proof, that slavery was tolerated,
and actually existed throughout Spanish
America, until the separation of those prov
inces from the Spanish crown, and of course
it might now lawfully exist in all the terri
tory acquired from Mexico or Spain, unless
it had been legally abolished by express le-
gislation, or by operation of law, as a ne
cessary result of the transfer of that terri
tory to the United States.
Slavery, said Mr.. Marsh, was introduced
into all the foreign possessions of the Span
sixteenth century, at a period when it was
tolerated in almost every country where the
civil law was in force ; and though the num-
Der of slaves in Mexico did not exceed ten
thousand, in the year 1900, yet the institu-
ton was neither legally nor practically ex-
tnct, at the time Of the Mexican Revolu-
ton.
1t had been asserted that slavery was
l., al, ~
tuition Of 1924. This was an error, and
Mr.. Marsh referred to that instrument to
show, that so far from being abolished, it
was actually recognized by the Constitution
of 1924, which contained the following pro-
vision, borrowed no doubt from our consti-
tuition Every state is bound to deliver
up fugitives from other states to the person
who Justly demands them, or to compel
them in some other way to satisfy the party
interested" The phraseoogy has been al
tered from the corresponding provision in
our constitution, in order to embrace, not
technical slavery alone, but that barbarous
relic of ancient Roman law, peOnage, or the
servitude of an insolvent debtor to his cred
itor, as existing by the laws of Mexico.
The error, so far as it was a misappre-
hension, and not Misrepresentation, arose
from the fact, that the constitution of the
several States of the Mexican confederacy,
did in fact, in general at least. abolish slave
ry either Immediately or prospectively, and
Mr.. Marsh cited the provisions of several
of those constitutions to that purport, and
among others, that of the joint state of Tex
as and Coahuila, adopted in 1927, which
ordains as follows
In this state none is born slave after
the PRONUNCIATION of this constitution at the
capital of each district; and after six
months, the introduction Of slaves is per-
mitted under no preteXt whatsoever"
But, said Mr. Marsh, New Mexico and
California never were states Of the conied-
eracy, but territories, without a provincial
legislature, the government Of the former
being purely military and that of the latter
a polltico-religous organization. 1t was
not satisfactorily shewn, that the Mexican
government had ever, in a constitutional
way, attempted the abolition of slavery in
those territories nor was it clear that Con-
gress or any branch of the federal govern
ment, had the power to interfere with the
rights of property in the territories. The
constitution of 1924 gave Congress power
"to enact laws and DEGREES for the regula
ton of the internal administration of the
territories"
These terms were very different from those
defining the power of our Congress over the
territories. Did they authorize the Mex
can Congress to do any thing more thai
prescribe the form of Government for the
territories! This, in the opinion of Mr.
Marsh, was at least doubtful,
But it had been said that President Gu
errero, who had been made Dictator at TIT
time of the Spanish invasion under Barra
gan in 1929, had abolished slavery through
out the Republic. 1t was sufficient an
swer to this, to say that Congress had n
constitutional authority to confer the alleg
ed extraordinary powers upon the President
and his dictatorship was consequently
mere military usurpatlon but although tn
decree of Guerrero recited that he had bee
invested with extraordinary powers, no &C
of Congress granting such powers had bee
produced. On the contrary, it did appear
that in July 1929, two months only befor
the date of the decree in question, the MeN
lean Senate by decided ma jorlty, refuse
10 assent to bill which had passed tn
lower House, comforting extraordinary pow
ers on the President for the term Of fiy
months.
In 1885, said Mr.. Marsh, the federal col
stitutlon OF Mexico was overthrown, not
the constitutional process of amendmen
but by violence; and plan of government
enactng a centralized, instead of tedert
republic, abolshing the State legislature
and reducing the states themselves to d
partments, was promulgated. Mr. Mar:
had not been able to find copy of this pla
of government, but it did not appear fro
the abstract of it given by Muhlenpfordt,
have contained any provision relative to 81
very. 1t had been said, that the Congre
acting under this new plan of governme
had passed law in 1887 abolshing slave
throughout the Republic, and providing
the compensation of the master but whet
err Congress had power to pass such an az
under the new constitution, and whether tn
instrument ought to be held legally to s
percede the constitution of 1924, we
questions which we had not the means
determining
IL must be remembered said Mr.. Mars