The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-05-18


pass laws affecting the public lands, or violating some
fundamental principle The section of the Iowa terrific
rial constitution shows very clearly the object oil Tie
II is in these words:
"SKcrIox And be further enacted That the leglsla
tive power OF the Territory shall extend TO alt rsnnu sun
jects egsation but law shall be passed interfering
posed upon the property OF the United oae d hihn
than the lands or other property of residents All the laws
of the governor and leg save assembly shall be submitted
TO- d'approred ne Co" a.c, 9! the o"'ea STATES
the same shall be null, and Of no elect
II will be observed thai the sanction OF Congress is mol
required before law goes INTO elect eut II require ine
dsannroval of Congresst requires affirmative action to
arrest II And here, again, these territorial constitutions
are somewhat analogous to our colonial charters me
chief difference Is this, which was very great II the
alive but here Congress must do more, and ahrmatvely
disapprove it, And although the power thus reserved 10
the King was much greater than the power reserved TO
Congress- il was considered partaking OF leglsla
tive attribue for, although the colonsts complained OF
the tyrannca exercise of this power, they never ques-
toned its legality, but they went to war to resist the
claim OF Parliament to egslae for them in reference to
their domestic affairs.
come now, Mr.. Chairman, to the Missouri compro-
mise am free to admit, in that, there an attempt
on the part of Congress 10 adopt fundamental legislation
for the territories But it must be borne IN mlnd that
the strict consructoniss never admitted the right OF
Congress to do On the contrary The south voted
against the Missouri compromise That compromise,
is improperly called, forced upon us by the north
And it has been acquiesced in by the SOUTH rather IN
consequence of the circumstances in which originated
and as means of preventing the agitation of an excl
ting and irritating subject than because of any validity
in the thing itself. Its obligation is rather moral than
legal and have acquesced in 1t as such heretofore
and are willing to do so hereafter 49,
But gentlemen say If you are willing to ABIDE by me
Missouri compromise, why object to the oregon Dill
YOU choose to rest upon the Missouri compromise, we
have objection If that applies to the subject this
provision is unnecessary and therefore, IN insisting upon
its retention in the BILL YOU in effect repudate that CON-
promise
maintain, further, that if the power OF egsating for
the people of the territories resides in Congress, every
territorial government we have organized has been done
in violation of the constitution of the United States All
the powers of the general government delegated and
no proposition is clearer than that legislative body can
care" presume there can be no doubt about this.
But, in addition o the constitution declares, as we have
that % gye hssn granted MSe sha sha IL
consist of Senate and House of Representatives." 1t
surely will not be maintained that we can transfer any
portion OF these legislative powers TO any oner
provision has been introduced conferrng upon the
territorial legislatures the fullest legislative powers
Besides, II the powers of the territorial governments
emanate from Congress- then all their officers United
States officers, and under the constitution, can only be
appointed by the President.
The constitution declares that call officers of the United
Staes with few exceptions, within which these terri
toral officers do not Gomez shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice OF the Senate and
tiers have granted provide that the governor shai
have power to appoint and commission all officers civil
and of the militia" So much for the practice OF the
country in establishing territorial governments.
desire to call the attention of the committee to
decision OF this whole question, which was made by the
two OF Ere s
AT the commencement OF the "a session OF the 9Th
Congress-, Mr. Jefferson recommended that in anticipa
ton of the period when Congress might abolish the slave
trade law for that purpose might at once be passed
That portion OF the message was reerred In both houses
to select committees.
On the 18th of December, 1906, Mr.. Early from the
committee of the House of Representatives to whom was
referred that part Of the Presidents message. reported
bill for that purpose.
Sefte nt qabb6a s OF any negro =, mGiao, or other
person OF COLOR with intent to keep, SELL or dispose OF
such negro. muIao, or person of color. slave
Section I'd imposes very heavy fine upon any, one
who shall be concerned in any way in building fitting
out a vessel to be employed in the slave-trade
Section Sd fofeits all vessels found engaged in the
slave trade, and imposes fine upon the master and
owner.
Section 4th declares that eff any negro &c. the i'm
portation of whom by the is prohibited, 'sha after
the 3st of December 1907, be found within the United
States the territories thereof every such negro &c,
shall be forfeited; and it imposes penalty upon any
person concerned in buying or selling such negro &c.
Sections 5h and 9th prescribe the form Of proceed
Mr.: Sloan moved to amend the 4h section. by insert
ing after the word forfeited" "and such person slave
shall be entitled to his freedom"
Upon this amendment long debate ensued and it
rejected only 10 members rising in its favor.
Mr. Aston said he doubted whether Congress possess
ed the power OF saying that slaves imported into partc
uar State, whose laws directed them to be sod should
be made free.
Mr. Early remarked, he would ask gentlemen whether
the House the government of the United States
constitutonaly competent to declare what should
should not be property within the several Staes' They
were not competent TO this, after the article constituted
as property was brought within the limits of the United
States.
Mr. Bdrcell, of Massachusetts, said it was admitted
that by the forfeiture, slaves would be transferred from
the Individual owner to the United States and that they
might sell them as property Might they not, instead of
selling, manumlt them
Mr.. Eafiy of Georgia. contended that the slavehod-
ing States would not submit to having large cargoes of
Africans who did not speak their language understand
their institutions, let loose among their slave population
DIR. J. Clay, of Pennsylvania, opposed the amend
men upon the ground that the epugnance of the south
ern people would be such to this provision, that there
would be lnormers; and that if there were, the
laws of most of the southern States prohibited free ne
groes from remaining within them, this obnoxious popua
ton would be thrown upon other States where free ne
groes are permitted TO reside.
Mr.. SlOan said that further provision might be incor
poated in the BILL send those persons Of color that
might be imported in controvention of law back to
Africa.
Mr.. Smile doubted the proprety of the amendment,
but conended that the bill imperfect without some
such provision, and advised that the committee should
rise and the bill be recommtted
Mr. Quincy thought that such an important principle
as that involved in the amendment ought be settled be-
fore the bill was recommed He was opposed to doing
anything contrary to the safety and interest of any
part OF the Union and believing that this provision would
have that effect, he hostile it. Besides he be-
ieved there would be little difficulty in defeating it and
ne asked was to prevent the legislature Of Geor
after Congress had declared that these people should
tree considering them vagabonds, and selling them
a porfvyc r. 4