Democratic banner., 1849-07-09

co, without . law Of Congress authorizing tie
same; because it had been abolished by the Mex
lean government, prior to the treaty by which it
was ceded to the United States. If this propo-
si:ion be true, then ID it not strange, passing
strange, that a party should spring up in the Uni
ted States, one Of whose first and greatest prin.
ciples is the prohibition by law, Of the extension
of slavery to those very territories from which
il is already srcludsd7 Is it not strange that the
Of every free State in this Union,
should resolve in favor ofthe prohibition Of slave
ry interritories from whence it is already exclu-
ded? If this doctrine be correct, is it not mad
ness in northern members of Congress, year after
year, and session after session, to propose and
press this measure. and to refuse law and gov
eminent to the people Of the territories, without
a clause expressly prohibiting slavery7
A bill was introduced and passed the Senate
at the session of 1918, providing a Territorial
government for each of the Territories, to-wit :
Oregon, California, and New Mexico-lesving
the question Of slavery in the two latter untouch-I
ed. Every effort was made BY the Free-Soil
men to incorporate their favorits proviso, but
without effect. The Southern Senators, with
few exceptions, if any. voting for the Bill-the
Northern Senators, with but few exceptions, vo-
ting against it. This Bill went to the House Of
Representatives and was there defeated great
majority of Northern Representatives voting a.
gainst it; and the Southern Representatives, with
great unanimity, voting forft.
The great object of this Bill, which was re-
ported to the Senate by the Hon. John VI. Clay
ton, at that time a Senator from the State'of Dels-
ware-nOw Secretary of State-was to submit
this very question to the decision Of the Courts.
If the Supreme Court of the United States should
decide that il could not exist, and that slaves
could not be held to service by their masters in
those territories, without a law Of Congress au-
thOrizing it, then the Free-soilers had gained all
they contended for. But if, on the other hand,
the Courts should decide that the Territories Of
California and New Mexico, were open to the
settlement of the STAKEHOLDER with his slaves,
then the southern citizen had gained nothing
more than his rights underline Constitution of the
United States. For this we contend and moth
ing more. Non-ln,ervention by the General
Government, is all that we ask.
If it be true that slavery is now excluded from
California and New Mexico, the Free-SOilers
are guilty, not only Of great folly, but Of great
wickedness. II this matter be an abstraction,
why press it? Why press it with such zeal and
violence, as to drive the Southern people to des-
peration, when all that they ask, is to let the
question alone where it is?
But, Fellow Citizens, this question is no ab-
straction. 1t is a reality. A fearful reality
The moment California and New Mexico became
territories Of the United States, they became sub
ject to all the restrictions imposed by the Consti-
tuition Of the United States, and none others
The people of those territories are entitled to all
the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed
by the Constitution. All laws, ordinances, de-
crees, and institutions, existing and in force in
those territories prior to the ratification of the
treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which are incon-
siStent with the Constitution Of the United States,
are null and void. Therefore, all restrictions
upon the subject of slavery in those territories,
derived from Legislation by the Mexican Gov
eminent, are null and void By the rery act Of Ge-
QUESTION.
No shadow can bring with it such excitement,
alarm and agitation, from one end of this Union
to the other. The Legislatures of all the slave
States, with one or two exceptions, have indig-
nantly demonstrated against this abstraction--if
it be one.
No abstraction can bring this confederacy to the
very verge of dissolution. The best, if not the
only way, to perpetuate the Union, is to admins
ter the General Government in the same spirit Of
compromise, concession, forbearance, and fratern-
al feeling, in which it was formed.
This question has long been before the country
in some shape or other, but never assumed its
present aspect, until about the year 1895. The
address Of the Democratic National Convention
of that year, repudiated the movements Of the
agitators. In 1888. the open and incendiary con-
duct ofthe Abolitionists caused every true friend
to the Union to become alarmed at what was like
ly to be the result Of their action. The South