The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-08


lived 10 Territory, and know the embarrassment Il
is to have residents holding property in large guam,
titles on speculation The settlers in the nslghborhood
OF those extensive reservations put 70 immense neon
yenence in consequence Of them, while they are. by
their abors augmentlng the value OF property IN their
vicinity which contributes nothing, On Inc c.hsr hand
decreases it. The Legislature ", al the same time, shoFn
Of all power to redress this species OF grievance by inn
posing distinguishing taxes upon ne pIopsry q me NON
is reached, to move to strike u out
Again sir. propose to restrict the inhabitants OF
these Territories the exercise OF the elective fran
chise There are various other instances that might be
given Of interference with the municipal rights Of the in
habiants.
II is not every interference with the remedy OF con-
tract which comes within the prohibition OF the const
tuition. II in peon cases there be co ntract made do
propose to attack the terms OF that contract But
there abuse which has grown up the way OF
forcing that contract person under oblga-
ton to pay 80 much II you please, iaborfor
under the institutions OF our country obligation 10 per-
form labor may be discharged in money. Now, we all
know that the remedy in all such has been altered
and in,erfered with in every variety Of BY the
dreams that such interference Is within the prohibition Of
the constitution. The honorable senator from New Jer
sey has cited the case Of Imprisonment for debt That
will 10 illustrate this principle Imprisonment for
debt is generally abolished, and yet one has re-
gaTded as unconstitutional measure to abolish it,
But now, when we propose to strike out this unjust and
improper remedy which prevails in the Territories, the
objection 10 raised that we interfering with the
stuonal obligation Of contracts have failed to per-
ceive this distinction cannot perceive how we inter
fere by such legislation with any constitutional right, by
simply correcting abuses which may have grown up
the mode Of enforcing that right.
Mr.. FOOTE; ! have no idea Of OBTAINING the Senate
by discussing this question. But it appears to that
upon this question, the Senate ID divided into two distinct
cassesone protesting 10 know nothing on the subject
q q ALI and the other proisssng e know every
who frankly acknowledge their ignorance. doubt
much whether there is single senator here who ever
lsi, mir RUsKl and he considers the thing Of SO little
importance not to regard it worth his while to detan
the Senate with any attempt at explanation. Allow me
10 say that nothing be mischevous in ITSELF or
ridiculous than attempts to NEEDLE with legislative
matters which we do not understand II is obviously
much wiser to allow such matters to be attended to by
those who best understand them combining attention
to subjects OF suitable legislation.
My own opinion is further, that we cannot leglslate
upon this subject OF Mexican peonage, without violating
the principles OF good faith towards Mexico and the
people OF the Territories; because, if such in sution
be actually existing there,he existence of which has
not YET been proved on this occason s evIden from
QUESTION: that not expected by the government OF
Mexico that would do the least detment to this in
f nea d0aa We
would interfere with their domestic nghtselse they
would hardly have acquiesced 50 quietly the transfer
much opposed to violating any principle OF good faith i'm
pedy conceded with thus treaty with the Mexican gov.
eminent and the people inhabng those Territories, as
pose OF carrying out certain abstract principles OF national
law. Never will consent to violate my own sense oil
what is honest and equitable, and confomabe to good
fah in order to enhance own consequence as an ag
tator OF abstract and startling theories hope therefore,
that we will give the goby to this proposition. Every
must that in undertaking to legislae this sub
ject we wandering in the dark. and may commit mis-
Mr. WALKER. / do not know what the senator
means when he speaks OF violating his oath OF office
Mr. FOOTE I did not allude to the senator from
Wisconsin
Mr. WALKER. hope the senator from Mississippi
did not suppose that any gentlemen who support this
measure would violate their oaths OF Office.
Mr. FOOTE. was not alludIng 10 any gentleman in
fsIt is application 70 himself am not responsible But
Ifee bound to say, that the honorable senator from
Wisconsin is one OF the last in the world to whom
b s1 hs . ss%st sns 70
have proceeded far enough this matter be satisfied
that we are at sea- without chart compass. We
acting upon subject Of which know too little to JUS
tfy Legislation, and the desis the better II
10 proposed TO egslate upon peonage and is evident
from the ordinance which has been read that the i'm
preston OF the senator making the proposition that peon
age is confined Indians Such is not the fact II is
evident too that the honorable senator could not have
understood the system of laws which regulates the rea
ton OF the peon TO the MASTER from the authority he
quotes, the ordinance 10 which he has referred, and
his comments upon IT, He complains that the master may
not give certificate OF discharge when his debt has been
paid up The fact is that in that the peon cite
the master before the magistrate OF his district and
pei him 10 give the discharge Such at least is the nfor-
nation have received Peonage does rest upon the
laws of Mexico II is derived from the civil law The
Mexcans did not originate it. but drew il from the Span
iards, and they from the Romans IL is a conract-a
contract modified by CUSTOM and peculiar in this that the
child OF the peon passes into the estate OF the parent
That 10 doubt the result OF the dependence which ex
lists in the condition. and which shows an incapacy for
independence is hard species OF servitude because
there is dependence without the permanent interest,
which insures the care OF the In this respect il
" worse than African slavery II is moi, however,
in the feature objected TO different from the laws which
restrain apprentices and forbid persons from harbong
employing absconding apprentices.
But, Mr. President, hold that we have no power to
legsate this subject hold that il is one OF those
relations oil person and property which have
control do not refer to the prohibition OF the consu
non against interfering with the obligation OF contracts
The prohibition applies TO the legislation OF States Il
does not SEEM BY the trainers Of the constitution 10 have
been supposed as possible contingency that the general
government would TO interfere with contracts
or TO destroy the rights Of private property Why should
IL be considered oppressive extraordinary 10 prohib
other persons from employing the peon, without dis
charge from the service which he had agreed 10 render
10 precisely what is done in relation 10 apprentice
who runs away from his master. The ninth article OF
the treaty . obligatory upon us in regard to Mexicans
inhabing this country, and has application this
the rights Of property and If there is good faith to the
obligation for protecting the rights Of property, have
no power can have no purpose, to interfere with, so
as TO destroy It, believe, and have often said, that
when people and institutions established in that
country, peonage would be incompatible with their feel
ings and Influences and in the OF years would
disappear. What shall take ts place am willing that