Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1848-08-25
REMARKS OF MIR. MARSH

inserted OIL the customary teIllls
-.-----.-z-r-z.---~- --..---.---rn.s--
REMARKS OF MIR. MARSH
! OF Vermont, in The House Of Representatives., Au-
gust 3, 1913, on Slarery in The Territories Of
New Merico, California, and Oregon.
Mr. Marsh said That throughout the de.
bate on this important subject, it had been as
snmed, that slavery had neither a legal nor an
actual existence in Oregon or the territory ac-
quired by the late Mexican Treaty. He was not
sure that this opinion was well founded, and he
proposed to show, that it was matter Of doubt,
whether slavery had ever been abolished in Or
egon, California or New Mexico, by any legis.
ation which our courts of law would recognize
as valid, and he would thence argue the necssi-
sity of a positive prohibition of that institution
by Congress. It. was too notorious to require
historical proof, that slavery was tolerated, and
actually existed throughout Spanish America,
until the separation of those provinces from the
Spanish crown, and of course it might now law.
fully exist in all the territory acquired from Mex.
leo or Spain, unless it had been legally abolish.
ed by express legislation, or by operation of law,
as necessary result of the transfer Of that ter
ritorv to the United States.
Slavery, said Mr.. Marsh, was introduced into
all the foreign possessions Of the Spanish crown
about the commencement Of the sixteenth CEN
tury, at period when it was tolerated in almost
every country where the civil law was in force;
and though the nhmber of slaves in Mexico did
not exceed ten thousand. in the year 1900. vet
the institution was neither legally nor PRACTICAL
~ extinct, at the time of the Mexican Revolu-
ton.
1t had been asserted, that slavery was prohib-
ted by the Mexican Federal constitution of 1924.
This was an error and Mr.. Marsh referred to
rl,, ,l,,t E,rf
abolished, it was actually recognized by the
constitution of 1924, which contained the fol-
lowing provision. borrowed no doubt from our
constitution: - Every state is bound to deliver
"up lugitvcs from other states to the person
" who Justly demands them. or to compel them
g in some other way to satisfy the party interest
led" The phraseology had been altered from
the CORE spending provision III our constitution,
in order 10 embrace, not technical slavery alone,
but that barbarous relic of ancient Roman law
peonage. or the servtude of an insol.ent debtor
to his creditor, as existing by the laws Of Next
CO.
The error, so far as it was misapprehenson
and not Il misrepresentation, arose from the fact
that the constitution Of the sereral States of the
Mexican confederacy did in fact. in general IA,
least, abolish slavery either Immediately or pros
pectivcly. and Mr.. Marsh cited the provisions o
and Coahuila, adopted in 1927. which ordains as
follows:
SIN this state none is born a slave after thu
PRONUNCIATION of this constitution at the capita
of each district; and after six months, the in
e PRODUCTION of slaves is permitted under no pre-
'teNt whatsoever.
But. said Mr. Marsh, New Mexico and Cali
fornia never were states of the confedcracy, bu
Territories, without a provincial Legislature, tn
government of the former being purely military
and that of the latter polltico-rcli9louS organ
izatiun. II was not satisfactorily shewn liza
the Mexican government had ever, III const
tutional way, attempted the abolition OF SLAYER
in those territories nor was it clear that Con
rress. or any branch OF the federal government
had the power to interfere with the rights {
proper,y in the territories. The constitution {
; 1924 rave Congress power to enact laws an
" DEGREES for the regulation OF the internal at
administration OF the territories"
These terms We're very different from thos
defining the power of our Congress over the te
rtorie:. Did they authorize the Mexican Con
press to do anything more than prescribe Il
form of government for the territories! Thl
- in the opinion Of Mr.. Marsh, was at least doub
iul.
But it had been said that President Guerrer
:. who had been made Dictator at the time OF Il
!. Spanlsh invasion under Barragan in 1929, h;
{, abolished slavery throughout the Republic.
was "A sufficient answer to this, to say that 70
gress had no constitutional authority to cont
the alleged extraordinary powers upon the Pre-
e. dent. and his dictatorship was consequently
mere military usurpaton but although the
cree of Guerrero recited, that he had been lnve
ed with extraordinary powers, no act OF Ca
uress granting such powers had been produce
On the contrary, it did appear that in July Is;
on two months only before the date of the dec'
- in question: the Mexican Senate, by dec't
d majority. refused lis assent TO "A bill which |
9 passed the lower House, comforting ex;raord
nv powers on the President Tor the term OF
months.
In 1885. said Mr.. Marsh, the federal con
err tuition of Mexico was overthrown, not by
constitutional process Of amendment, but by
olence and a plan of government enaclln
centralized, instead Of tei3raL republic, abol
and ing the state legislatures, and reducing the SIT
themselves to departments was promulgated
per Mr. Marsh had not been able to find copy
this plan of government, but it did not app
from the abstract of it given by Muhlenplord
G have contained any provision relative to slav
MIS- 1t had been saiJ that the Congress acting III
this new plan Of government had passed
Y. in 1897 abolishing slavery throughout the
- puUllC, anu prO'luiHp lo' tnc S""iPNS"'"
the master; but whether Congress had pow'
pass such an act, under the new constltu
4. and whether that instrument ought to be
legally to supercede the constitution OF ]
- were questions which we had not the mean
determining.
1t must be remembered, said Mr.. Marsh,
Is publcists and jursts are guided by very d. IL
principles in the determination oiqueslionso
nature. Politically, and with reference to
nations, the government de tlcto is recog'
> by statesmen, but a court Of justice mgl
Elk, indpe, that as between the subjects and the
f eminent the acts Of the latter had no va
whatever, and therefore though treaty ma
- us with the government actually in power
a. be binding it by no means followed tina
courts would sustain laws, in deroga'lon
rights of property, enacted by any of the
of usurpations with which Mexico had
.AW cursed.
Doubtless it was true that the law had
HELPS generally acquiesced in, at least IN the
- that it had been so universally, IN the terri
was not yet proved, but there was every
L, 10 believe, that slavery existed IN TACT, to
very limited extent, if at all in any part
Look Mexican republic. What the effect OF 81