The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-07-26

" thAnits uNt teuoIs acquainted Win us contents,
we are thankful that we are under no obligaionof /
Justice and fair dealing in the controversy between
him and Col Benton, to publish any Of the mat.
iers Of personal dispute between them. In Mr.. |
Benton's long and labored speeches, we confined |
ourselves to mere opinion on their character and
peculiarities- extended notice only 10 the |
position which he assumes upon the public qnes-
ton regarding the Territories It is we'll we did
so, for the personal replication of Mr. Calhoun is
circumstantia and full of materials for
still further public dsputations, both upon matters
Of fact and matters Of opinion. It would have
been a tedious and NEST improbable undertaking,
to open our paper to the mutual recriminatons Of
these distinguished men, pursuing each other
through course ofthirty years, and searching into
the motives and consequences Of every public act.
Having kept clear Of Benton grievances and COM
plants, we are thankful we have contracted no
obligation to good faith to cucumber cur columns
with Mr.. Calhoun's rejoinder, and all that is to
come after We could not reconcile it to our sense
Of propreiy to publish one, to the entire exclusion
Of the other To be sure this is not adopted the
general rule Of newspaper conduct, but the excep-
tons are to be avoided and censured.
We have already expressed our opinion Of the
offensive tone Of dctation and infallibility which
pervade both the Speech and the Address In
point Of mere style, Mr.. Calhoun has the advan-
tage. He expresses himself more. teraey, and
maintains a more decorous dignity of temper. But
he writes very carelessy and blunders frequently in
very simple matters of grammatical construction
But on the whole, he writes much better than his
opponent, and has succeeded in defending himself
very vigorously on some points, and converted his
defence on others into very formidable attack.
4 A.
ton and the importance Of the question he is dis
eussing, to make known what are his declared
opinions on the doctrines involved on the Terri
torial question. Separated from the mere personal
bullets, they form but small part of this long
Address, and we accordingly proceed to give an
abstract Of them, as nearly as possible in his own
words.
l. In regard to the assertion that Congress has
unlimited power over the Territories on the sub
iect of slavery, he says;
deny the assertion, and maintain that Con-
gress has no such power over slavery there else
where, or over any other subject. / deny that
Congress has any absolute power whatever;
that It has any Of any description, except such
are specifically delegated or that are necessary
and proper to carry them into execution. / main
tain that all its powers are delegated and trust
powers and not positive and absolute and that all
Of the latter description belongs exclusively to the
| people of the several States in their sovereign
character. / also hold. that Congress is but their
representative and trustee, it cannot rightfuly ex-
ercise any inconsistent with the nature and object
Of the tras with the character of the party who
created the trust, and for whose benefit it was
created. finally hold, that instead of having the
absolute power over the Territories of doing as it
pleasea, that Congress is restrained by ali these
limitations; and that its power to exclude you
from emigrating with yOur slaves into them, can
not be maintained without denying that ours Is
government Of specific power that is a govern
ment OF which States and not individuals are the
constituents, and that Congress holds its powers
as delegated and trustpowers. Nor can it be main
tanned, without assuming that ours is a cOnsoli-
dated Government and holds its powers absolutely
IN It's own sovereign right of doing as it pleases."
2. He denies the assertion that Congress has ex-
ercised this power without question, and affirms
that it has been always denied when asserted, and
that the bills which seemed to enforce it were
always passed compromises, ,0aiUing the question
Of potDer and he afiirms that the Oregon Bill
the first bill which recognized the power,
without compromise.
3, He denies that slavery is local in its charac-
ter, which must have the sanction of express law,
to carry it where it does already exist by sane
ton of law and asserts that there is no distinction
between property in slaves and any other sort of
property.
| He maintains that property in slaves is more
ancient than property in lands, and is as deiensi-
bic on abstract principles; that it has existed
| longer than any laws which undertake to control
it; and that, in fact, slavery is no more the crea
ton Of law merely, than any other property is anC
that there is no State existing in which slavery
was created by statute. So much for its origin
4. As for the local character of slaves as prop
eTty, Mr. Calhoun's doctrine is this; That all law
in reference to property are local in all countries
as much for slaves any thing else, and no more
When any thing claimed as property passes from
one Jurisdiction to another it continues to be prop
erty, just the existing laws there define it anC
becomes subject to those laws and ceases to be
property, according to the local law, unless cir
cumstances place it under the protection Of inter
national law This, he continues, is true of Oh,
States, in their relations towards each other Tha
is property when carried from one State into ano
ther, only when it is property by the laws of tn,
State into which it is introduced.
The General Government cannot override tn,
States on this subject
The question therefore becomes this: Can TIN
General Government determine what shall or shal
not be property in the territories, or wherever it
authority extends, beyond the States! The cas-
is putt Can the General Government establish sla
| very by law! Mr., Calhoun insists that by Mr.
Bentons theory it can. Mr.. Calhoun says it can
not. II can neither establish nor abolish. Tn
same comments apply to the public ships and Mu
tual Marine of the United States, beyond Stat
authority.
s. Mr.. Calhoun gives definition Of the power
and duties Of Congress under the Constitution
arguing upon the well-known theory that it is un
necessary DO more than state, that its AUTHORITY
is but the united and joint authority of the severa
States conferred uponit by Constitution, adopte,
on mutual agreement, but by the separate act o
each State, in like manner, in every respect a
each adopted its own separate Constitution, witt
the single exception that one was adopted without
and the other on mutual agreement of all III
States. It is then, in fact, the Constitution q
each State, as much so its own separate Con
stitution; and is only the Constitution of all tn
States, because it is that Of each As the Consti
tuition made the General Government, that too is