Democratic banner., 1849-07-16
Continued from first page.l
1.-THE questions to be decided seems t

l. Whether a territorial restriction he al
assumption Of illegitimate power; or
2. A misuse of legitimate power; and If
the latter only, whether the il" jury threaten
ed to the nation from an acqmleSence OF the
misuse, or a Illustration OK it, be the greater.
On the first point there is certainly room
for a difference of opinion, though Cor my
self, | must owt, that have always lean
ed to the belief that the reStrict0H wds not
soathiR the true scope q tie cOnsta"ilon. =
This is the hasty view have taken of the
subject. | am aware that it may be sus-
pected of being influenced by the habit of
a guarded construction of constitutional
powers; and | have certainly felt all the ill.,
fuences that could Justly flow from a con-
viction that an uncontrolled dispersion Of
the slaves now within the United States, was
not only best for the nation, but most favor
able for the slaves also, &c."
General Harrison in a letter to President
Monroe. says: sin relation tothe Missouri
question, I am and rave been for many years
so much opposed to slavery that | will new
er live in a State where it exists. But | be-
lieve that the Constitution has given no
power to interfere in the matter; and that
to have slaves or no slaves, depends upon
the will of the People in each State alone.
Besides the constitutional objection, l am
persuaded that the obvious tendency ofsuch
interferences, on the part of the States
which have no slaves with the property of
their fellow-citizens of the others, as TO
produce a state of discord and jealousy that
will in the end prove fatal to the Union"
President Monroe in a letter to Judge
Roane, says: GAS slavery is recognized by
the Constitution, it is very unjust TO restrain
the owner from carrying his slave into a
Territory, and retaining his right to him
there, &c."
But, gentlemen, / will not detain you lon
ger on this point. / have already shown
you that our most eminent and most distin-
guished statesmen were opposed to the
principles of the Proviso; and also, that
there is no. one solitary, clear precedent in
favor of the power to be found in the past
history of the government. And now per-
NIT Inc to call your attention very bri1y to
the terms of the constitution itself. The
only clause from which the power is claim
ed to be derived, reads as follows:
"The Congress shall have power tc dis
pose Of, and make all needful rules and reg
u~lations respecting the territory, or other
property belonging to the United S~tates;
and nothing in this constitution shall be SO
construed as TO prejudice any claims Of the
United States, or of any particular State
This is all the constitution says on the
subject; and does this clause confer upon
Congress, is claimed by the Provisoists, full
power to legisIate for the Territories in al
cases whatsoever? Isay emphatically, il
does not. No such idea ever was contem.
plated by the men who framed that instru.
ment.
They were the patriots who, in the de.
fence Of their dearest rights, had perillet
all, in resisting the projections of thu
British Parliament. Parliament claimed
the right to legislate for the Colonies in al
cases whatsoever. That claim was man
fully and successfully repealed. The as
sumption was denounced as being incom
patible with the rights of English subjects
And now, after our Revolutionary father
had achieved their independence, and wer,
establishing a new, guarded, limited, ant
safe government, can it be believed, the
they would give to Congress the identica
power over the 2ierritOries, which they hat
denied to Parliament over the Colonies, ant
had denounced as the very essence of ty'
ranny?.
No, fellow-citizens, the idea is preposterY
Gus. They were ever jealous of govern.
ment, and never intended by this clause, to
give such power to Congress, as would ell
able that body, to become equal to the op'
p, essors whose power they had broken.
Nor does the language of the clause, BY
sny means, justify this high claim of pow
er. Under it Congress can make al
needfuI rules and regulations ; but can it b,
said, the ercLus,on of the property of ont
half the States of the Union, from the com
mon property, belonging to the whOLe Un'
ION, is needful rule or regulation? If thu
word needfuL had been so construed at tina
time, does any man here believe the consti
tuition ever would have been ratified? Mos
certainly not.
Aud it is our duty-solemn and impera
tive, to avoid a construction n0W which w
all know was not intended then. But let IL
60 still farther. You will observe thes,