The Middlebury galaxy. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1848-1850, 1848-09-05

existing only by positive law. Ii cannot be
transferred to a jurisdiction where no such law
exists. The consequence is that Slave ia
ken by his master into a Free State becomes
free. The case would be the same with fu-
gitire slave, were it not for the provision for
his surrender in the Constitution Of the United
States, which was introduced into that instru-
ment because, without it, the relation of mast
er and Slave would not be recognized in a
free State. The result is that Slave taken
into one of these territories, would become
free.
The BILL then, would exclude slavery as eff
fectually as the legislation of Congress can do
it. 1t is full as effectual to this purpose as the
Wilmot Proviso.-The language of that Pro-
viso is, that slavery shall not be permitted in
these territories-that of the bill Is, slavery is
now prohibited there by law,-let that law re-
main.-It shall not be altered.
The bill has been represented as settling
nothing,-as leaving every thing at loose ends,
as really prohibiting the people from exclu-
ding slavery, if they would. All this may be
said, so long as the eristing laW Of those terri
tories is kept ont of sight-nay, if one assume
that The previous law there sanctioned slavery,
much more might be said.-The bill would
then perpetuate slavery. But the effect of
the bill is to be judged by reference to the
state of things upon which it is to operate. 1t
is all-im portant to know what that law is which
is not to be changed. If it exclude slavery,
and is confirmed and perpetuated by the bill in
question, how can it be said that the bill au-
thorizes the extension of slavery? How can
slavery be introduced there consistently with
this bill .? And how can l be charged with
abandoning the principles or disappearing
the sentiments Of my constituents?
Another egregious error in regard to this
bill is the idea, that Congress endeavored to
throw off their duty and their responsibility
upon the Supreme Court that the bill would
call in the Supreme Court to do their duty.
/ his Is great mistake. The bill refers moth
ing to that Court 1t does not mention or al
Jude to that Court, except as it provides for an
appeal from the Judicial tribunal proposed to
be established in the territories, to the Su-
preme Court. 1t attempts to confer no legis-
lativc power on that Court, but, as have en-
deavored to show, it proposed to exert the full
legislative power of Congress to the exclusion
of slavery, by sanctionins and perpetuating
the existing prohibition. What then is left to
the Court? 1t this.-Certain Southern gen.
tlemen, at the head of whom is Mr.. Calhoun,
insist that the Constitution guarantees to the
people of the South their property in slavery,
that, if they choose TO 90 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 acquired territories, it overrides and an
nuls the local law, and further, that Congress
have no power to interfere with this property
in the territories, or exclude 1t heretronl-that
the WilmOt Proviso, if enacted by Congress,
| would be unconstitutional and void, and that
the Ordinance Of 1887 is equally so.
Now if these gentlemen are right, all our
legislation, by way of prohibiting slavery, goes
for nought. Certain it is Congress cannot re-
peal the Constitution. Nor can they deter
mine its construction. This is in its nature a
Judicial question, entrusted by the Constitu-
ton to the Supreme judicial tribunal, and
there it must remain. We deny the doctrine
Of Mr.. Calhoun absolutely and totally. My
own views of that question were fully express
ed in reply to Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Berrien.
That reply will soon be laid before the public
in connexion with my remarks on the bill in
question.
Disagreeing as we do upon this question
there is but one tribunal which can decide be-
tween us, and that is the Supreme Court
The Committee therefore left that question
where they found it, and where they were O.
bliged to leave it. We had, as we believed
exhausted the legislative power,-the judicial
we could not assume. We had framed bill
which we thought effectual, its constitutional
ity, if it passed, was matter 20 be determin-
ed by another department.
The error probably grew out of the remarks Of
Mr.. Clayton, which were not full. understood
He remarked that the whole controversy was left
10 the Supreme Court. That was true, because
the controversy was reduced TO the simple con-
siitutional question Mr.. Clayton, have reason
to know, regarded the bill / did, and consider
ing the only remaining question TO be the va
lidity of our law he very properly treated the de-
termination of that tribunal, as all that remained
to be done, to close the whole controversy.
All that the Committee could do in refer
ence to this question was to see that it should
not be left to the final determination of the
territorial Judges appointed by the President
This they did, by providing an appeal in all Ca
ses involving this question to the Supreme
Court.
The result of the whole matter is, that the
bill excluded slavery from the territories, SC
far as the legislative power could affect it
Whether Congress possessed the power TO dc
so, was question left where the Constitution
had placed it.
What more we could have done / have yet
to learn. The Wilmot Proviso would not have
been, IN my judgment, more efficient. Thai
Proviso would not have passed the Senate
Its very name had become odious at the South
1t processes to proceed upon the authority Of
Congress alone, without regard to the wishes
of the people of the territories. The South
ern doctrine has always been that this subject
should be left TO them. The bill of the Com
mittec, while it secured the object of the NORTH
by excluding slavery, at the same time con-
formed, IN measure, to Southern views, as II
adopted and perpetuated the laws which the
people of.the territories had previously enact
. ed. Southern gentlemen could sustain one
but not the other. For myself, considering
the practical result to be the same in both ca
ses, ] felt at liberty to adopt that form which
promised success, rather than that in which
defeat was certain.
,, SAMUEL S. PHELPS.
Middlebury, August goth, 1s4s.
/ MARTIN VAN BUREN.-The Meadville,
Pa, Journal says, that the nomination OF
II