Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1848-09-29
NUMBER 6.


sanctioned Slavery, much more mich, H.
said.-The bill would then perpetusle SIs.
very. But the effect Of the bin Is 10 he
judged by reference to the state of ,b;nss
upon winch 1t is TO operate. II is all.in.
poI'aht 10 Know what that law is which is
no, to be changed. If il exclude SLAVERY.
and IS confirmed and perpeiualed BY The
OH IN question, how can il be said thst the
olii authorizes the extension Of Slavery =
How can Slavery be introduced there con.
sistently with this bill And how can / he
charged with abandoning the principle, or
misrepresenting the sentiments of nv CON.
stituents
Another egregious error in regard 10 this
olll, is the idea that Congress endeayored
70 throw oil their duty and their response
putty upon the Supreme Court that the
OIL would call in the Supreme Court to do
their duty. This is a great mistake. The
o''I rgers nothing to the Court Il does
not mention or allude 10 that Court. escep,
as Il provides for an appeal from the Judi
cial tribunal proposed to be established in
Inc territories TO be the Supreme Court
IL attempts to confer no Legislative power
on that Court, but, as have endesvored
10 show, II proposed to exert the full leQis.
lalive power Of Congress to the exclusion
Of Slavery, by sanctioning and perpetuat.
ing the existing prohibition. What then
Is ieit TO the Court! II is this.-Certain
southern gentlemen, at the head Of whom
- Mr. Calhoun, insist that the Constitution
guarantees TO the people of the South their
property 10 Slavery.-that, if they choose
10 go TO the territories with their Slaves.
the guarantee would protect that property
there They of course insist that, as the
Constitution is in force in these newly ac-
CURED territories, it overrides and annuIs
the local law-and further, that Congress
nave no power to interfere with this prop
eriy IN the territories, or erelude il there
Irom-tiiat the Wilmot Proyiso, if enacted
by Congress. would be unconstitutional
and void. and that the Ordinance of 1877
is equally SO.
Now If these gentlemen are right, all
our legislation, by way of prohibiting Sla-
very, goes for nought. Certain il is, Con-
gress cannot repeal the Constitution
Nor can they determine its consiruction.-
This Is IN its nature Judicial question,
entrusted by the Constitution to the Su.
preme Judicial tribunal, and there il must
remain We deny the doctrine OF Mr.
Calhoun absolutely and totally. MY own
views Of that question we're fully expressed
in reply to MIR Calhoun and Mr Berien.
That reply will soon be laid before the pub
iic IN connection with my remarks on the
bill in question.
Disagreeing as we do upon this question.
there is but one tribunal which can decide
between US, and that is The Supreme Court.
The Committee therefore left that question
where they found it, aud where they were
obliged to leave il. We had as we beliey-
ed, exhausted the legislative power,-thc
judicial we could not assume. We had
framed bill which we thought effectual,
Its constltutionality, If it passed, was a
matter 10 be determined by another depart
nen..
The error probably grew out OF the re.
marks of Mr. Clayton, which were not ful.
ly understood. He remarked that the
whole controversy was left TO the Supreme
Court. That was true, because the con-
noyersy was reduced to the simple consti-
tutional question. Mr. Clayton, have rea-
son TO know, regarded the bill as did, and
considering the only remaining question to
be the validity OF our law, he very properly
treated the determination Of that tribunal,
as all that remained 10 be done, TO close
the whole controversy.
All that the Committee could do ia ref.
erencc TO this question was to see that il
should not be lefi to the final determination
OF the territorial Judges appointed by the
President. This they did, BY providing an
appeal, in all cases involving this question.
10 the Supreme Court.
The result Of the whole matter is, that
The bill excluded slavery from the terrific
ries, so far as the legislative power could
effect II. Whether Congress possessed the
power TO do so, was a question left where
the Constitution had placed H.
What more we could have done have
yet to learn. The Wlmot Proyiso would
not have been. in my judgment. more eff
cent. That Proyso would not have passed
the Senate. Its very name had become
odious at the South. II Processes TO pro-
coed upon the authority Of Congress alone,
without regard TO the wishes of the people
OF the territories. The Southern doctrine
has always been that this subject should be
left TO them. The bill of the Committee,
while II secured the object Of the North by
excluding Slavery, at the same time con.
formed, IN measure, to Southern views.
as II adopted and perpetusted the laws
which the people had previously enacied.-
Southern gentlemen could sustain one but
not the other For myself, considering
the practical result TO be the same in both
cases. felt at liberty to adopt that form
which promised success, rather than that
in which defeat was certain. --
SAMUEI, & PHELPS