The Mississippi Creole. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1841-1851, 1848-09-08

lated in the treaty of %cession, or on such as it
new master shall impose. On such transfer o
territory, it never has been held that the rela
tons OF the inhabitants with each other unde
go any change. Their relations with these
Iormer sovereigns are dissolved and new rela,
t%ionsare created between them and the govern.
ment which has acquired their territory. The
same act which transfers their country, trans.
fers the allegiance of those who remain in it
and the law which may be deemed political. i,
necessarily changed, although that which re.
gulates the intercourse and general conduct o.
individuals, remains in force until altered by
the newly created power of the State.n The
above is an extract from the opinion of the
Supreme court ofthe United States in the case
Of the American Insurance Company, ct Al,
vs~Canter, LIST Peters R. page 542.
The tribunal which would have determined
the question, " whether slavery, as known to
the Southern States, could exist in the terrific
ries OF New Mexico and California, under the
proposed compromise bill,' has already in eff.
feet in the above opinion decided the question
against the South. The opinion of the su-
preme Court in 1928, delivered by Chief JUS
tice Marshall, was, that the laws in force in
any territory ceded to the United States before
its cession which regulate the intercourse and
general conduct of individuals, remains in
force until altered by the newly created power
Of the State. No change was made In the laws
Of Mexico by the United States before the
treaty OF peace or after it was made The first
attempt to pass a law upon the subject was the
so called, compromise bill. Then we must look
to the treaty alone to find any change or modi-
hcatlon of that law Of Mexico which prohibits
slavery in New Mexico and California, in as
much as no law has been passed by Con-
gress on the subject. The laws Of Mexico
are not attempted to be changed by the treaty
hence, according to the decision before quoted,
they are in full force, and would have contin-
ued in force, on the subject Of slavery, if the
compromise bill had passed, and would have
been the law by which the courts would have
pronounced upon the rights Of the slave-hold.
er to retain his slave property.
Both Congress and the territories being pro.
hlblted from passing any law upon the subject
OF slavery, the law of Mexico winch prohibit
ed slavery is the law in force in New Mexico
and California, and would have been so Iecid.
ed, if the question had been presented to The
Supreme Court Of the United States for their
adjudication, # that Court had followed the
decision heretofore quoted. That the court
would have followed that decision we cannot
doubt, when we r%ecollect the force and au-
thority, given to precedents. and Formeradiudi-
cationsby courts in til administration OF Jus.ice
between man and man. If we be correct in the
views we have taken of this subject, the com
promise bill entirely defeated he interests of
the South. Not only did the south by the COM
promise, if carried out, give away Oregon, but
she was 10 receive nothing in return save the
poor privilege of lit'gating for our rights in
\ ew Mexico and California, with the almost
absolute certainty that we would lose them
by such litigation. The great mass of the
delegation in Congress voted for the
compromise bill, andin so doing, no doubt, be-
lieved they were promoting the interest Of
their constituents; but we believe in this they
were mistaken, and that Mr.. Stephens, and
those who voted with him, truly represented
the interest of the South. Those Of the north
who voted against the bill, in our opinion, were
mistaken also, for their desire was to limit
slavery, and not to permit it to enter the ter
%rltorles' They proposed to accomplish their
purpose by voting against the bill, when in our
Judgment, ifthey had passed the bill by their
votes, slavery would have been forever exclu-
ded from New Mexico and California.
Wv