Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1848-09-14

that, if they choose to 90 TO the territories with
their slaves, the guarantee would protect that
property there. They of course insist that, ne
the Constitution is in force in these newly ac-
quired territories it overrides and annuls the To-
cal law, and further, that Congress have no
power to interfere with this property in the ter
rtories, or exclude IL Merefom - that the Wilmot
Proviso. if enacted by Congress would be TN
constitutional and void, aud that the Ordinance
of 1857 is equally so.
Now if these gentlemen are right, all our
legislation, by way o. prohibiting slavery, goes
for nought Certain it is Congress cannot re-
peal the Constitution. Nor can they determine
its construction. This is in its nature judicial
question, entrusted by the Constitution to the
Supreme judicial tribunal, and there it must re-
main. We deny the doctrine of Mr. Calhoun
absolutely and totally. My own views Of that
question were fully expressed in reply 10 Mr..
Calhoun and Mr.. Berren. That reply will soon
be laid before the public in connection with my
remarks on the bill IN question.
Disagreeing ms we do upon this question, II ere
is hut one tribunal which can decide between
us, and that is the Supreme Court. The COM
mittee, therefore, lett that question where they
found II, and where they weio obliged to leave
it. We had, as we believed, exhausted the leg
islative puwer-the judicial we could not assume.
We had framed bill which we thought effeciu-
al its ccnslutionaity, if II passed, was mat
ter 10 be determined by another department,
The error probably grew out of the remarks OF
Mr. Clayton, which were not fully understood
lie remarked that the whole controversy was
left to the Supreme Court. That was true. be-
cause the controversy was reduced to the sim
pie constitutional question. Mr. Clayton have
reason to know, regarded the bill us did, and
considering the only remaining question to be
the validity of our law, he very properly treated
hn Ipi Of hat trihn mil III
manned TO be done to close the controversy.
All that the Committee could do IN reference
to this question was to see that i; should not be
left to the determination of the territorial judy
es appointed by the President. This they did,
by providing an appeal in all cases Involving this
question to the Supreme Court.
The result the whole matter is, that the bill
excluded slavery from the territories, So far as
legislative power could affect it. Whether Con-
gress possessed the power to do so, was ques-
ton lett where the Constitution had placed It.
What more we could have done have yet to
learn. The Wilmoi Provso, would not have
been, in my Judgment, more efficient That pio-
viso would not have passed the Senate. Its very
name had become odlous ut the South. 1t pro-
fesses 10 proceed upon the authority of Congress
alone, without regard to the wishes Of the peo-
pie Of the territories. The Southern doctrine
has always been that this subject should be left
10 thein Inc Olll OF the Committee, whllc II
secured the object of the North by excluding
slavery, at the same time conlormed, III meas.
ure, to Southern views, as ii adopted and per-
petuated the laws which the people OF the te,rto
res had previously enacted. Southern gentle
men could sustain one but not the Other For
myself, considering the practical result to be the
same in both cases, iet at liberty to adopt that
form which promised success, rather than that
in which defeat was certain.
SAMUEL S. PHELPS.
Middlebury, Aug ooh, 1913.