Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1848-09-14
Senator Phelps on the Compro-
mise Bill.

result practically in the exclusion Of Slavery, we
have never doubted so we do not at all ques-
ton his motive in supporting the bill. JuDGE
MCLEAN seems TO entertain the same opinion
but would the Supreme Court concur in this
opinion? We are afraid not there is danger
that it would not and so the sqtest toay wo
think, would be for Congress to prohibit. That
was the ground of Messrs WEBSTER, CoRwrN,
UpnAM, and all the other Wings of the Free
States and although the Wings of Vermont
may be ready TO accord to SENATOR PHELps
the merit OF good motive, we suspect that their
judgment is altogether with The opponents of tie
bill
TO THE FREEMEN OF YER WON'T.
Holding myself responsible to my constituency
for my official conduct. deem an explanation Of
my course on q recent occasion due both to that
constituency and myself Much excitement
seems to have occurred in relation to the bill for
the establishment of government in the newly
acquired territory, commonly called The Com
promise Bill,") reported by the Select Commit
tee Of the Senate, Of which Committee was
member; and some structures, not very favorable,
have been made in the public prints upon my
connection with that measure. ] have never
doubted that | could vindicate my conduct, on
that occasion, in the judgment of all intelligent
and impartial men. My reusons for concurrng
| in that bill in the Committee, and sustaining il
il the Senate were fully given on the floor of
the Senate, but unfortunately my reasons were
so imperfectly and inaccuralely reported TO the
public as to give no Ineligible. representation
to my views Circumstances have delayed their
publication in a more accurate and satisfactory
form; but they will be land before The public IN
a very few days, as published under my inspec-
| ton.
In the mean time, / avail myself of the earliest
| leisure after being released from most arduou5
and a:gung session, to ask suspension Of
opinion until the grounds of my action can be
understood. At the same time, it will not be
improper to correct the very great msapprehen-
sion which has prevailed in relation to that
measure. The bill was in the outset grossly
misrepresented, and, of course, grossly misunder-
stood and, to a very great extent, was con-
demned before its import and effect were known.
| | voted for the bill with settled conviction,
that it's effect would be the utter and absolute
exclusion of slavery from all those territories.
| The sincerity of that conviction, and of my pur-
pose to effect that exclusion, / ventured 10 say,
no member OF the Senate, of any party, doubts.
That such would have been the effect of the
bill, had it become a law, so far as. the legisa-
ton of Congress can effect that object, main
tain now. And do so by course Of argument
used in vindicution OF my course before the Sen
ate, which no member of that body venlured to
controver lssplnlnoss was admitted by po-
litical friends and political opponents, by those
who advocated and those who opposed the bill.
An epilone will be given.
The bil although long one, contained but
two illusions to the subject Of slavery. The
first was prohibition TO the territorial legisla
ture to pass any law on the subject. The Sec
ouI rnva annual frotn the tarritori1l iu1icinrv
to the Supreme Court Of the United States, in
all cases where a question of Slavery was
introduced. The Objectionable features of the
bill, II they exist at ALL must be found In one or
both Of these provisions.
Slavery 10y which | mean African slavery
was abolished in all the territories of Mexico
lat. BY decree Of Guerrero, while Dictator
in the year 1929. This was done in the course
of revolution, and might perhaps be consider
ed abroga'ed by a counter revolution.
2dly By the Constitution of 1894.
Sd. BY decree of the Mexican Congress Of
the 5li OF April, 1887 THIS decree has been
obtained from the Department OF State, aud
has been published in the various newspapers of
the country. 1t is not deemed necessary to re-
peat 1t here.
4lhly. The Mexican Government was bound
by treaty with Great Britain not To allow
Slavery in any of the territories OF the Re2ub-
TIC "hIc" VI course ProhIplis Iesiofauon'
such was the law OF New Mexico and Calf
lorna when The cesslon to the United States
took place. ny the law OF nations and OF the
civilized world, the laws OF conquered or coded
territory. So lar at all events as they reWbe TO
rights OF property ana private rights, remain IN
force until superseded by the Legislation OF the
acquiring power, Or In other words, -tlll that
power enacts new laws. lfauhorlty is demand
ed Tor this position, 1t may be found IN the late
decision OF the Supreme Court OF the United
States, IN the decision OF henderson vs.. Pom
dexter, 18th Peters Reports.
The decree OF the Mexican Congress OF the
9TH OF April, 1897, was therefore in force when
the bill OF the Committee was reported to the
senate, ana IS IN force WL what then did Inc
Committees bill propose? 1t dId not propose TO
repeal the local law Of those provinces, but, on
the contrary, prohibited the local Legislature from,
changing II. This prohibition originated with
me. toaS The first 10 suggest il, and did so ruth
a re'o 10 perpetuaie The eristing iG,c 81 those
provinces phich prohibit Slouery. Little did
Imagine, at that moment, that was exposing
myself TO the charge of misrepresentlng my con-
sttuency or advocating the extension OF Slave
ry.
But there is another principle which may be
noticed here. Slavery is local institution, eX-
| h,. l.. Il L.