The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1848-09-15

laws Of California, which exclude slavery
are the supreme laws of the land as fully
as any law of Congress could be, that we
should again allude TO the opinions of such
eminent ttrists as Judge Mclean, Judge
Brownson, Judge Berrien, Chancellor Wal
worth, Robert J. Walker, Sc. Ac.g No
we viii give stronger authority than even
these great names. We will show that the
whole south, with john &. Calhoun al their
head, hold exactly the same cIiuion, and no
man ii The tHi0a, Irhose intelligence anti
les HAN to spaas or ,rri:e upon this sU!jcct,
hoiis u G!gereat opinion.
The position of Mr.. Calhoun, and Of the
whole south, for his position is theirs, is not
that the south have a right to go there with
their slaves because there are no laws in
California anI New Mexico agaiuS, slavery,
VI because those laws are of less binding
force than law Of Congress would be-
They contend that until repealed by Con-
grcSs, those laws are exactly a. hInduc As
a law ofConSrcs wuulG be: but they fuu,h-
er contend that a law Of Congress, eXcl-
ding slavery from the territories, would be
unconstitutional, and for that reason and
none other, these territorial laws are also
unconstitutional To show this, we quote
from Mr. Calhoun'> Oregon speech. dr!v-
cred in the |. 5. Senate June -, ISIS:
As soou as the treaty between the two
countries is ratified. the sovereignty aud
authority OF Mexico in the territory aCquir-
ed by it becomes extinct, AMI that Of the
United States is substituted il it. place. car
rying with il the constitution, with lis over.
riding control over all the laws and insiilu-
tons Of Mexico inconsistent with il. II il
true, the municipal laws of the territory not
inconsistent with the condition aud the ma
tnre ofour political system would, according
to the writers on the laws of nations. remain,
until changed, not as matter Of right. but
merely SutloranCe, and between the iuhab-
tants of territory, ia order to avoid a stale
Of anarchy, before they can be brought un-
der our laws.
Thus he admits, tia; by the laws Of ma
tons, the laws Of California remain, until
changed by congress, except where they
az ca WIN '''N IN'isN'''II'l ~ N't
L. $. Bat he argues through his whole
speech, that law Of congress excluding >la-
very from any territory, would be inconsist-
ent with the constitution, and therefore those
laws Of California are alike inconsistent. /.
Then tie laws Of California and law Of
Congress excluding slavery, rest exactly Oh
the same footing. and now we want to
know Of Mr.. Cotton or any Of the baruhur-
ners, where the necessity is for legislation
by Congress, in order to exclude slavery
from California and New Mexico, when no.
body doubts that the present laws in force
there are Just as effective as a law Of Con-
gress, and when the constitutionality of ei.
Their must be tried by precisely the same tn
Junal3
There is no escape from this. We claim
to be as good free territory man as any
other man living. We advocated the doc
trine when men who are now abusing US
and calling us inconsistent because we can
see no necessity for passing laws where
none are wanted, and wagiug war against
the democratic party and its cherished prin.
ciplcS, shrunk from meeting the question
and urged us to hold our reace. We hurl .
back to those men the charge of inconsist.
enty, and deny their right to lecture us.