Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1848-09-29
To the Preemen Of Vermont.

myself. Much excitement seems 10 hayl
occurred in relation TO the bill for the es
Enlistment Of Governments in the newl
acquired territory, Commonly called III.
"Compromse bill, ~ reported by the SeIec
Committee OF the Senate, OF which Com
miitee was member and some strict
ures, not very favorable. have been mad
10 the public prints, upon my connexior
with that measure. | have never double,
that could yindicaie my conduct, on tina
occasion, in the judgment of oil intelligent
aud impartial men. My reasons for con
curing in that bill in the Committee, anc
sustaining il in the Senate, were fully Civ
en- on the floor Of the Senate, but unfortu
nately my remarks were so imperfectly and
inaccuraiely reported to the public, as to
! give no ineligible representation Of m,
views. Circumstances have DELAYED their
| publication in more authentic and salts.
factory form; but they will be laid before
the public in very few days, as published
under my inspection.
In the mean time, avail myself Of the
earliest leisure after being released from a
most arduous and fatiguing session, to ask
suspension OF opinion until the grounds
OF my action can be understood. Al the
same time, it will not be improper to cor
rect the very great Misrepresentation which
has prevailed in relation to that measure.
The bill was in the outset grossly misrep-
resented. and, Of course, grossly misunder-
stood and. 10 very great extent, was
condemned before its import and effect
were known
voted for that bill with a settled convic-
ton, that its effect would be the utter and
absolute exclusion Of Slavery from all those
territories. The sincerity Of that conyic.
ton, and Of my purpose to effect that ex-
clusion, L venture 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 legisla-
laiion Of Congress can effect that object,
! maintain now. And do so by a course
Of argument used in vndication Of my
course before the Senate. which no men,
Der Of that body ventured to controyert-
Its soundness was admitted by political
friends and political 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 10 the subject OF Slavery.
The first was prohibition TO the terriiori-
al legislature TO pass any law on the sub
Ject. The second gave an appeal from the
territorial judiciary, to the Supreme Court
Of the United States, in all cases where
question Of Slavery was introduced. The
Questionable features Of the bill, if they ex.
ist at all, must be found in one or both Of
these provisions.
Slavery (by which mean African Sla-
very was abolished in all the territories of
Mexico,
LIST. By decree OF Guerrero, while
Dictator, in the year 1920. This was done
IN the course OF revolution. and might
perhaps be considered abrogaled by coun-
ter revolution.
2dly. BY the Constitution Of 1884.
3dly. BY decree Of the Mexican Con.
gress of the 9Th Of April, 1887. This de-
cree has been obtained from the Depart
ment Of State, and has been published in
the variousnewspapers Of the country. II
is not deemed necessary 10 repeat il here.
4lh. The Mexican Government wa.
bound by treaty with Great Britain, not
10 allow Slavery in any Of the territories Of
The Republic; which of course prohibits
its restoration.
Such was the law Of New Mexico and
California when the cess0n to the United
States took place. BY the law of nations
and Of the civilized world, the laws Of
conquered or ceded territory, so far at all
events as they relate 10 rights Of property
and private rights, remain in force until
superseded by the legislation Of the acquir-
ing power, or, in other words till that pow
er enacts new laws. II authority is de-
handed for this position, il may be found in
the late decision Of the Supreme Court of
the United States, in the case Of Hender.
son vs.. Poindexter. 18th Peters Rep'ls.
The decree Of the Mexican Congress of
the 9Th Apr. 1887, was in force when this
bill was reported to the Senate, and is in
force yet. What then did the Committees
Bill propose II did not propose TO re-
peal the local law Of those provinces, but,
on the contrary, prohibited the local legis.
lalure from changing il, This prohibition
originated with me. rds the first to sug-
gest il, and I did so icith vie,O to psrpet-
uate the enistiag lao Of those provinces
iohieh prohibits Slapery. Little did inn
agine, at that moment, that was exposing
myself TO the charge Of misrepreseniing
Wy Nche'"eShNJ " ud'oSutHk thC CAlCu-
sion Of Slavery.
But there is another principle which
may be noticed here. Slavery is a local
institution, existing only by positive law
II cannot be transferred to jurisdiction
where no such law exists. The conse-
qnence is that a Slave taken by his master
into a Free State becomes free. The case
would be the same with fugitive slave,
were it not for the provision for his surren.
der in the Constitution Of the United
States, which was introduced into that in
strument because. without it, the relation
Of master and Slave would not be recog-
nized in free State. The result is that a
Slave taken into one of these territories,
would become free.
The bill, then, would exclude Slavery as
effectually as the legislation OF Congress
can do il. Il is full as efiecluaI to this
purpose as the Wilmot Proyiso.-The Lam
guage Of that Proyiso is, that Slavery shall
not be permitted in these territores--that
of the bill is, Slavery is now prohibited
there by law,-let that law remain.-Il
hall L..