Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1848-11-30
VOL. XIII, NO. 3.---WHOLE NO. 2l9s.

ltVe franchise. But we were not justified in ex.
tending that degree of confidence TO the popu-
Iaton OF view Mexico aud California. In this
point of view, believe that the Senate will con-
cur with me. An elective government in Ore
gon is nothing more nor less than the exercise
OF the elective franchise by our own people.
brought up and instructed under our institutions.
The exercise of that franchise by the monprel
population of New Mexico and California would
be as broad farce could DO enacted. Hence
we made the difference. The question then
was, how we could organize a government for
these Territories without involving ourselves in
thisqueston of slavery. After having rejected
The idea OF an elective Legislature there it was
proposed to organize government on what is
called the primitive plan-consistinr of a gov
ernor and judges, appointed by the President of
} the United Starcs AS northern man, objec-
ted to that proposition, without a restriction up-
on the introduction of slavery was not in ia
} vor of removing this great question from the
hands and control OF the Senate. was not dis
posed to send the power ndrft, to seek lodgings
in some tenement about this city. | was not
, disposed to suffer it TO take refuge with these
appointees Of the President. What was the re-
: suit OF my objection? A prohibition was nclu-
ded IN the bill, restraining these temporary gov
ernments from enacting laws on this subject of
slavery; and now, to my utter establishment, I
am told that have concurred in a measure which
, pcrpetuatcs slavery in those countries. How so?
Why, says the honorable Senator from Maine,
you have prohibited these men from excluding
1t. suppose we all agreed that il is not there
now, and that 1t could not be brought there with
out legislation; and, in the simplicity of my
heart, AMI the simplicity of my intellect, sup
posed that if local regulation were already
made which forbade the institution, and that reg
ulation were left in force, the institution would
{ be eifectualy excluded My idea of the matter
is simply this that the institution being already
excluded, if you forbade any change of the law
| it really was excluded forever
, This is one of the objections going the rounds
Of the newspapers, and on account of which tho
committee is threatened with "burning in eff
, gy." We of New England have been accused
} of not only selling our constituents, but our
selves, to perpetual disgrace, and all because
happened to believe in the old Yankee maxim of
letting well enough alone.
What more do gentlemen require than is Civ
en- in this bill? | claim that, Judging by their
own platform, no fault can be found with it. If
they demand an express prohibition of slavery,
here is local law now existing there, prohibit
| ing the institutional law which we recognise
, and affirm. Why add another law? Could you
in that way make the prohibition any stronger?
} 1t would be Il work Of supererogation. The
7 committee might have decided upon the Wimot
provlso; and, if we had succeeded in introducing
f 1t into this BILL does any man suppose that wa
: OF any man upon this floor No, sir; the Will
mot proviso cannot be carried here.
, 1t ain right in these views, land southern
, gentlemen can judge whether am or not-they
are aware that am addressing myself to oblec-
tors who a rec with me in the general prnci-
Piles advance,) | ask why should | have enter
ed into an idle contest about punctio? For,
with these views the Wilmot provso is nothing
. but punctio. It's object is effected by other
f means.
pass now to the judicial power of the bill. -
And here, sir, permit me to advert TO another oh
= lection, which has gone abroad in regard to this
: bill, equally unfounded. 1t has been said that
this bill refers the matter to the Supreme Court,
and that we have endeavored to escape respon-
greater mistake can be made The bill refers
nothing to that court which falls within the con-
stltutonal power of Congress, nor any thing
). which does not belong to them independently Of
our action. This subec: presents itself in two
h aspects. First as legislative question. Con-
gress possessing the exclusive power of legisla-
ton over these Territories, the question is first
s presented to us as one Of legislation merely
: What law should be passed on this subject of
, slavery? shall it be admitted or prohibited p
; These questions must be settled by US in our dis
i cretlon. They cannot be referred to the Su-
: preme Court. The bill does not profess to do
so. But as have endeavoreG to prove, we have
5 settled this matter, far as our Legislation can
: settle it, against the introduction of slavery.
Y First, IN regard to Oregon, by continuing their
n laws in force for the present. and leaving the
i matter to their legislation in future, with neg
e alive upon their action in Congress, which will
! prevent the Introduction of slavery without our
assent IL is agreed on all hands that slavery
= cannot exist without a positive law allowing it.
= Should they be disposed to enact such law,
v which no one supposes will ever be the case, we
t have a control over it.
: Secondly, in regard to New Mexico and Cali
i fornia, by leaving their present law excluding
Il slavery in force, and prohibiting the territorial
|, Legislature from changing it. This is all which
1t can be done. To add prohibition of our own
! would add nothing, because, first, we already
n sanction the exclusion and, secondly, IT we did,
il a subsequent Congress might repeal 1t. We
!. have done all which we can do.
n IN the positions on which these results ara
e founded, all gentlemen on both sides agree with
IL me. | viii! repeat them:
e J. Slavery exists only by force of positive law
e in Its favor.
z. g There is now no law in those provinces al
20 lowing it, but it has been expressly abolished
g there.
", 3. The law of those provinces remains in
y force until changed by the legislation of the
United States.
re A. The bill prohibits the territorial legislature
0t from changing W.
SO 5. may add that if Congress enact now an
" express prohibition it adds nothing to the exist
I'd ing prohibition, and might be repealed by any
h subsequent Congress.
II What more then, can be done in the way OF
lie legislation than this bill proposes? | have said
H. that believe all agree in these positions. | be-
}. lieve neither the Senator from Georgia, (Mr
D. BERRIEN,) nor the Senator from South Carolina,
n Mr. Calhoun deny them. What, then, do
q these gentlemen insist upoD aud what is the iu-
e dicia question which is alluded to? | under
II stand those gentlemen to insist that the Consli-
r tuition guarantees to the people of the slave
States their property in slaves; and that by force
he of the Constitution, they are equally protected
it in that property in the Territories IT they choose
g. TO migrate there with it. This question Is pure
% ly judicial question. If such be the true in-
g depreciation and meaning and effect OF the Con-
e sttutlon, how can any act of Congress change
ID it? Can we repeal the Constitution And II a
e question arises TO the construction Of that in
e, sruement, does it not belong to the Supreme
IN Court 10 determine it? How then can II be said
" that we refer to that tribunal a question which
10 belongs to it by the Constitution, and whioh we
: cannot take from them if we would
II What, then, does this bill provide IN ieiation to
. Al =, ;,,l,a,.I ....o. oF tho Territories! That