The Middlebury galaxy. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1848-1850, 1848-09-05
THE GALAXY.
TO THE FREEMEN OF YER
MONT.

Holding myself responsible to my constItu- |
ency for my official conduct, deem an expla-
nation of my course on a recent occasion due
both TO that constituency and myself Much
excitement seems 10 have occurred in relation
to the bill for the establishment of Govern
ment in the newly acquired territory, (com-
monty called the compromise bill, report
ed by the Select Committee of the Senate, of
which Committee l 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 impair
tial men. Ny reasons for concurring in that
bill in the Committee, and sustaining it in the
Senate were fully given on the floor of the SEN
ate, but unfo -tunateiy my remarks were 10 i'm
perfectly s inaccurately reported to the public,
rs to give no Ineligible representation of my
views. Circumstances have delayedtheir pub
LEGATION in a more authentic and satisfactory
form but they will be laid before the public in
a very few DAYS, as published under my in
spection.
In the mean time, I avail myself of the ear
liest leisure after being released from most
arduous and tatiguing session, to ask suspen-
sion 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 mis-
| apprehension which has prevailed in relation
to that measure. The bill was in the outset
grossly misrepresen:ed, and, Of course, grossly
misunderstood; and, TO a very great extent,
was condemned before its import and effect
were known.
| | voted for that bill with settled convic-
ton, that its effect would be the utter and alb
solute exclusion of Slavery from all those ter
rtories. I he sincerity Of that conviction, and
of my purpose to effect that exclusion, VEN
| ture to say. no member of the Senate, of any
party, doubts. That such would have been
the effect of the bill, had it become law, so
far as the legislation of Congress can effect that
object, l maintain now. And l do so by a
course of argument used in vindication of my
course before the Senate, which no member of
that body ventured to controvert. Its sound
ness was admitted by political friends and po-
litical opponents, by those who advocated and
those who opposed the bill. An epitome will
be given.
The bill, although long one, contained but
two illusions to the subject of Slavery. The
first was prohibition to the territorial legis-
Iature 10 pass any law on the subject. The
second gave an appeal from the territorial ju-
dietary, to the Supreme Court of the United
1
nv was introduced. The Objectionable features
Of the bill, if they exist at all, must be found in
one or both of these provisions
Slavery (bv which | mean African slavery
was abolished in all the territories of Mexico,
1st. By decree of Guerrero, while Dicta-
tor, IN the year 1929. This was done in the
course of a revolution, and might perhaps be
considered abrogated bv counter revolution.
2dly By the Constitution of 1854
Sdly. BY decree of the Mexican Congress
of the 9Th of April 1887. This decree has
been obtained from the Department of State,
and has been published in the various news
papers of the country. Ii is not deemed nee
essary to repeat it here.
4thly The Mexican Government was bound
by a treaty with Great Britain, not to allow
Slavery in any of the territories of the Repub-
lie; which of course prohibits its restoration.
Such WAS the law of New Mexico and Cali
fornia when the cession to the United States
took place. By the law of nations and of the
civilized world, the laws of a conquered or ced-
ed territory, so far at all events as they relate
to rights of property and private rights, re-
main in force until superseded by the legisla-
ton of the acquiring power, or, IN other words,
till that power enacts new laws. If authority
is demanded for this position, it may be found
Ill the late decision OF the Supreme court OF
the United States, in the case Of Henderson
vs.. Poindexter, 18th Peters Rep'ts.
The decree of the Mexican Congress Of the
5th Apr. 1887, was therefore in force when the
bill Of the Committee was reported to the Sen
ate, and is in force get. What then did the
| Committees Bill propose? 1t did not pro-
pose to repeal the local law of those provinces,
but, on the contrary: prohibited the local leg
stature from changing it. This prohibition
originated with me. ,UaS the first to suggest
il, and / did so Nth q Uie,c to perpetuate the En-
istino lay of those provinces aohich prohibit
Slarery. Little did imagine, at that moment
that 1 was exposing myself to the charge Of
disappearing my constituency or advocat'
ing the extension Of Slavery.
But there is another principle which may be