Democratic banner., 1849-07-16

WV
But the specification is not complete By any
means. Since we have acquired New Hex
leo and California by the joint efforts of the
South as well as the North, Congress is
urged to pass a law forever prohibiting
slavery in those territories and thereby in
effect, appropriate this common property
belong to the whole Union, to the exclusive
benefit of the North. This proposition is
called the "Wilmot Proviso!!"
And now, fellow citizens | have come to
the main subject which proposed to inves-
tigate. The "Wilmot Proviso..!" II short
segment an The grand circle IF measures
By the abohtonists to cOmpet uHi-
mate emancipation, This is what its OBJ
iect is; and it behooves every friend of the
Union, and every true patriot, whatever
may be his views upon slavery in tine alb
~stract, to raise his voice in opposition to the
passage of a measure SO obnoxious.
1t is true "PhovIso' has been represented
as a MERE NoTHlsG-a dispute about goats
wool, and so on. But what its character and
tendency is. we will see more fully hereaf-
ter. You will all recollect, that while the
war was waging in Mexico, and the gallant
sons of Missouri were in the field of blood,
risking all in defence of the honor and glory
of their country;--at that time, the Presi-
dent asked of Congress an appropriation to
enable him to negotiate a peace, and these
same friends of the "Proviso" were deter
mined to defeat the appropriation, and leave
the President without the means to effect a
treaty of Peace, unless they could attach to
it the "Proviso!" Now if it be such an un-
important and useless measure, surely the
i'Provisois,s" deserve reprOof for hazard
ing the lives of their ccuntrymen in war
and e~ndangeIing the question of peace, all
for what is now called "nothing." And yet
all the reproof given is against the Soutl
for resisting and opposing the "~provisO;'
while encouragement is lavishly held out tc
the provisoists to persevere. They are the
aggressors and plaintiffs in the question
and We are acting on the defensive and are
merely resisting their efforts. They de.
mard affirmative action by Congress; ant
we ask for no action, and request, nOn-in,
reference.
This simple statement of the position Of
the two parties, it seems to me, is sufficient
to show that they are wrong. WrOng, i
the subject be as unimportant as some of it.
friends pretend; and douHy ,urOng, if il
involve the principle, and be fraught with
the dangerous consequences which we, it:
enemies and opposers aprrehend.
Yes, gentlemen, | u utterly deny both the
constitutionality and expediency of the vii,
mot P~roviso. And if l am right in either
view oft, what shall we think of its friends,
or of their Southern aiders or abeHorS p
Where, / demand to know, can be found
any authority for the enactment of a. law
creating distinctions and discrimination
between the citizens of different States oil
the Union? Where is such supreme, un-
fettered; and illimitable legislative power
derived? If the power is deduced from
the constitution, then | ask from what clause
or section? These are questions which
desire to be answered; but instead of do.
ing that we are told that the question o.
power is settled, and precedents are invok.
ed, as if they were perfectly conclusive
Can presidents enlarge the grant of power
contained in our written constitution p
Why, | can prove by q more satisfactory ar
gument, and sustain by clearer precedents
the constitutionality Of the .Mien and. Sedi,
lion Laws, than any | have seen in support
of the power of Congress to prohibit and
exclude slavery from our territories, and
yet, every republican from the days of JET.
~ferson to the present time, repudiates the
idea of Congress passing any Alien or Sedi'
ton acts.
But what are the presidents about which
much has BEEN said? The first which is