Spirit of the age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1845-1913, 1848-09-14

peTpetuate slavery. Dut Inc erect OF tnt
bill is to be judged by reference to the
state of things upon which il is to operate
1t Is all-imporIant to know what that law
is which is not TO be changed. lit ex
clude slavery, and is confirmed and per.
petuated by the bill in question, how car
it be said that the bill authorizes the ex
tension of slavery How can slavery be
introduced there consistently with this
bill? And how can | be charged with
abandoning the princi ples or misrepresent
ing the sentiments OF my constituents
Another egregous error in regard to
this bill is the idea, that Congress eudca-
vored to throw off their duty and their re-
sponsibility upon the Supreme Court
that the bill would call in the Supreme
Court to do their duty. This is grea'
mistake. The bill refers nothing to that
Court. 1t does not mention or allude to
that Court, except as it provides for an
appeal from the Judicial tribunal propos
ed to be established in the territories, tc
the Supreme Court. 1t attempts TO con.
Ter no Legislative power on that Court, bu,
as have endeavored to show, i, proposed
TO exert the full legislative power of Con-
gress to the exclusion Of slavery, by sane
tioning and perpelnallng the existing pro.
hibiton. What then is left to the Court
II is this-cerlaiR Southern gentlemen, al
the head of whom is MIR Calhoun, insist
that the Constitution guarantees tn the
people OF the South their property in sav-
ery,-that, il they choose 10 go to the ter
rtories with their slaves, the guarantee
would protect that property there, They
of course insist that, as the Constitution
is in force in these newly scqulred terri
tories, it overfides and aunuS the local
w,-and further, that Congress have no
power to interfere with this property in
the territories, or e1cludc ii MeyefrOm-
that the WilmO, Proviso, if enacted by
Congress, would be unconstitutional and
void, and that The Ordinance of 1857 is
equally so,
Now if these gentlemen arc right, all
our legislation, BY way of prohibiting
slavery, goes for nought. Certain it is
Congress cannot repeal the Constitution.
Nor can they determine its construction.
This is in its nature a judicial question,
entrusted by the Constitution to the Su.
preme judicial tribunal, and there i, must
remain. We deny the doctrine of Mr.
Calhoun absolutely and totally. My own
views of that question were fully expressed
in a 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.
Dlsngrceing as we do upon this ques.
ton, there is but one tribunal which can
decide between rs, and that is the Su-
preme Court The committee therefore
left that question where they found it, and
where they we're obliged to leave it. We
had, as we believed, exhausted the legis.
!alive power,-the Judicial we could moi
assume. We had framed bill which we
thought effectual, its consli,ulionaIty, il
it passed, was matter to be determined
by another department.
The error probably grew out of the re.
marks Of Mr. Clayton, which were not full
Ily understood. He remarked that the
whole controversy was left TO the Supreme
Court. That was true, because the con.
troversy was reduced to the simple consl-
,ulional question, Mr. Clayton, | have
reasons 10 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 to be
done, to close the whole controversy.
| All that the committee could do in ref
erence to this question, was to see that il
should no, be left to the final determine
lion of the territorial Judges appointed b,
the President. This they did, by provid
ing an appeal in all cases involving ,hi:
question to the Supreme Court.
The result Of The whole matter is, thai
the bill excluded slavery from the terrific
r'es, so far as the Legislative power couc
aifec, it, Whether Congress possessed
the power TO do 50, was question lief
where the Constitution had placed it.
What more we could have done have
, yet to learn. The Wlmot Proviso woul'
no, have been, in my judgment, more eff
{ cient. That Proviso would no, have pass
ed the Senate. It's very name had be
come odious n: the South. II processes Il
1 proceed upon the authority of Congress
e alone, without regard 10 the wishes of III
: people of the territories. The Southern
= doctrine has always been that this subJec
: should be left to them The bill of TIL
e Committee, while it secured the object G
e the North by excluding slavery, at tn
e same time conformed, in a measure, I
: Southern views, as it adopted and perpet
:, uated the laws which the people Of tn
e territories had previously enacted. South
J. ern gentlemen could sustain one but nc
t the other. For myself, considering tn
II practical result to be the same in both ca
i es, felt at liberty to adopt that fort
u which promised success, rather than ihi
in which defeat was certain.
b SAMUEL S. PHELPS.
al Middlebury. August 29h, 1913.
N Hard Hiis.-No man hns federalism