Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1849-02-05
NO, 6,

ing, fundamental maxims.
The States of this Union, in all the great moral
capacities OF national sovereignty, are undoubtedly
entirely equal. 7 be little State of Delaware for
example, is the full equal Of her empire sister,
New York-iust to use an Illustration of Vattel,
"a dwarf IS as much man as giant, and the
smallest Republic as much State as the greatest
empire" The proposition is a truisn. Who shal!
dare deny it 10 s''SF'
Now, the Winot Proviso DESTROYS this great
principle Of State equality. Various illustrations Of
the inequality were given. 1t is unequal in this.
.hat allows the citizens of the free States TO go to
the new territories with all their property of every
klnd, while it denies the like privilege 70 the cti-
gems OF the Slave States. This is not only une.
quail it is degrading and insulting to the Southern
States. It is placing them on lower platform
than their Northern sisters. 1t is unequal also
in this-tla it takes to the free States the exclu
sive enjoyment-the monopoly of a common PROF.
erty-of territories acquired by the common blood
and treasure, and which belongs as much to one
State as to another. tits an unequal, unjust, odi-
Gus, dishonorable, degrading discrimination.
1t has been said by the gentleman from Eau
qner that the right TO the territories does not per-
tam to the States States, but to individuals as
citizens of the States. The former popition was
denied and considered, and the latter contains.
said MIR. 5. an admission which yields the whole
question. 1t is conceded, that ifa Wilmot Provi-
OF ore State in favor of the citizens of another. il
Is clearly unconstitutional. 1t does make such
discrimination A Yankee goes to California with
his clocks and wooden nutmegs. These are re-.
co9hlsed there as property protected as such, it is
larceny to steal them, and the thief is punished by
the laws of the United States for the theft 4
citizen OF Virginia goes thither with his slave that
slave is not recognised or protected as property
1t Is no larceny to steal him. Or to take more
HE u Inp ie
while 1t allows the citizens of Massachusetts, for
instance. to go the territories with all their proper
ty, it allows the people of Virginia to 90 tlither
with only a portion. The goods, wares and
merchandise are recognized and protected as prop
erty; but the slave, much propertyas dry goods
or TIN wares, or any thing else, the moment he
puts his foot on the soil of the territories .stands
forth redeemed, reg nerated and dsenthralled by
the irresistible genins Of universal emancipation ~
1t there can be more unequal, humilatipg dis
elimination than this, cannot conceive If. On
the adm ssion, then, of the gentleman from Eau
QUEER himself, claim that the Wmot Proviso
involves an unequal discrimination against the in
dYldual citizen Of the Southern States, and is, Or
his own argument, unconstitutional.
1t is unconstitutional, too, as being forbidden by
the compromises of the Constitution touching sla-
very. These compromises, though not written
down in tali. with pen and ink, in the Constitu-
ton, are egibly written in lis history, and are as
well understood, and just as binding as if they
We're put down in terms the most explicit The
only question IS, how far these compromises ex-
tend. They reach to the protection of slaves as
property. as much without as within the limits of
the States. Wherever slave is found in the
common territories, the Federal Government.
which is but The general agent or trustee Of all the
states, the common owners, is bound to recognise
that slave as property and if that general aren't
does any act to tie contrary of this It violates tho
true meaning aud spirit Of the slavery compromise
OF the Constitution. Suppose at the time the Con-
stlfutlon was framing, the Northern peo1le had
said to their brethren Of the South, that the con-
sructlon OF this compromise was, that THEY should
take to their own use aud monopolse any terrific
rles which might be afterwards acquired-wonld
this Union have ever been formed Would not
the s;nuthern States have, with scorn spurned the
confede, alton
The gentleman from Fauquier admits the Cen
eral Government to be trust but says the trust is
final. and Congress the final Judge. Suppose Con-
gress 1lagranty abus. the trust---depart palpably
from the terms of the trust is Congress, the trus-
tee in the case, to Judge whether or not the trust
has been faithfully executed Is the cestly ON;
trust (the States) to stand by, and lei the trustee
have his own way. and arbitrarily decde as to the
proper execution Of the trust ? That were 10 u
mite Executive and Legislative powers in the
same head, make the wrong -duer the judge Of his
own wrong doing, and set at nought the ordinary
laws OF trust
The argument Of the gentleman from Alexan.
drla was next considefed--,ihat the phrase to
''make all needful rules and regulations respect
ing the territories and other property belonging to
the United States,' gave to Congress that power
ogeneral legislation for the territories, from which
might be dednced the power to pass the Wilmot
Proviso Territories, in that phrase, forms its
connection with the words "otAcr property, 'clear-
~ means lands as property, and the light to make
rules and regulations con ernlng them, confers no
government jurisdiction orer persons. The ludi.
clal decisions referred TO in this connection, were
several'y examined, and shown to be utterly in
adequate and inapplcable to the case in question.
Not one OF timse decisions settles either that Con-
gress has the power to pass the Willnot Proyiso.
or has such an absolute universal power of legisla
sion In the territories as would carry with it, by
necessary deduction, the right to pass that proyiso
1t Is res non adudicata, and God forbid it ever
should be res judieata for ii ever it shall be so.
the rights of the Southern people to their slaves.
VIII not pc worth the parchment on which lhose
rights are inscribed.
Precedent is invoked, aud many are referred H.
These are all considered, from the ordinance Of
~ to the Oregon bill, not one of which was repar
ded as properly furnishing inst example of the
exercise OF the power. The law of Congress said
hlr. 5. establishing the territory of Orleans. on
which SO much stress is laid, was repealed yerv
soon after its passage. Even the Oregon bill Is
no precedent. 1t was but a carrying out of the
Missouri Compromise, by which the South have
been always willing tie stand, and which it would
now gladly embrace as settlement of this vayed
and disturbing question. 77
1t IS an jlmaaerisi thing together--slsyery ia
already forbidden beyond Sc deg. 80 min. by The
terms OF that compounds, to say nothing Of the
lnhlbltions OF climate, soil and location But there
Is one answer to all this argument Of PRECEDENT
Precedent is no fit test of cons tptional power. 1t
litoo unsafe. It's lights too dim to chase away
the ohscurity of legal complexty. Put the claim
ed power down in the broad usirous light of the
Constitution, and if by that light it is seen obyi
Gus and papable, let t be exercised bu, no, 9th.
eswse.
! MIR. S. then considered the positions taken by
Mr. Scott. that the South had sci the iirst exam
pie OF sectional division in the opposition Of South
4