The southern press., 1850-08-31
From the .4rkaasas State Democrat.
SPEECH OF
n. SOLON HoRLAND, on the 6lav

Hon soL0N RoRLAND, on the Slavery
Question,
DELIVERED AT LITTLE ROCK,
FRIDAr, August 10, 1850.
(coHrMUED.)
| undertook to show you that the so-c;led
oCompromise Bill'' is, in no respect better
for the South than the Wihmof Propiso /
claim to have done this for that portion of it
relating to California. Indeed, we have
seen that SO far, they are idesticGLy the
same, alike in terms, in purpose and in ef
feet and that the palidity of either, if either
IS to have any, is to be derived entirely and
exclusively from the legislation of Con-
gress.
The next provisions OF the bill are:
2. To establish Territorial Governments
for Utah and NcU Merico This embraces
two separate provisions, respectively for
Utah and New Mexico; establishing ter
ritorial government for each. But, as they
are substantially the same--indeed, precisely
SO, in the only point we now have to deal
with, | shall consider the two as single pro-
vision, for what may be settled as to one ap-
plies equally to the other.
The general power Of Congress, at jiscre-
ton, to establish Territorial government
over any portion Of the territory belonging to
the United States, is conceded The only
question then arising upon this part Of the
bill, is as to the character Of the government
TO be established-thst is, as to the provi-
sions Of the act establishing it. In this re-
spect, what do we find in this part Of the
bill? AS intimated, there is but single
point here to which our inquiry extends
that is, the provisions Of the bill in relation te
slavery. That provision of the bill is il
these words: The Territorial Legislature
shall pass emo laU in respect 70 African
slarery."
At first sight this may appear, and has ap-
peared to some-indeed, has been claimed
by some OF its advocates, to be, alike, an
abandonment Of the Wilmot ProuisO, and
the practical assertion of the doctrine of non
infe penfion by Congress in relation to sla-
very. But when we come to ex mine the
terms used, and especially when the exami-
nation extends to the circumstances which
led to their use, we find that the very reverse
is true, and that the power Of Congress is
here proposed to be exercised in the most
certain, comprehensive, and efectual man
ner Tor the exclusion Of slavery from this ter
ritory. In word, that it is the Wiiiaol
Proriso, not in words, it is true Gas in the
admission Of. California, but certainly and
unavoidably, in its purpose and effect.
Mark well the words Of this provision 1t
does not say the Territorial Legislature shall
not exclude, nor establish, slavery. That
would have been unnecessary, though not
inadmissible, in observance of the non-inter-
vention doctrine for it is certainly true that
Congress, having no power to exclude or es-
fabish slavery, the Territorial Legislature,
deriving all its powers from Congress, could
have and exercise no such power; and, there
fore although unnecessary, it might not be
wholly inadmissible, and could do no harm,
to assert fact Of such general importance.
But the provision is that the Territorial
Legislature shall pass emo law in respect 10
African slavery. Mark that well-'s'no law
IN respect 10 African slavery ~ That is,
that whe her slavery exists there, nov, or
shall be carried there hereafter, the Legisla-
ture Of the Territory shall in nowise either
recognize, or touch it, by legislation. No
Legislation, whatever, to be had on the sub
ject--not even to the extent of a police regu-
lation II an individual, there, should claim
negro as his slave, he would find no recog-
milton of his rights Of ownership, and be re-
fused all means of enforcing them. He
might be robbed Of his slave, by another
and would yet be denied all means of redress,
either to recover his property, or to punish
the robber The slave might run away, or
refuse to serve and, yet, no way be open
to reclaim him, and no means provided to
enforce his obedience. That such must be
the result of such provision-of such pro-
hibition to the Territorial Legislature, is OBJ
vlous to every mind.
Suppose slavery to exist there, now, how
could it continue under such state OF things 7
Take Arkansas, for example ! African
slavery has existed here, from the frsA settle
ment of the country and yet there is no law
establishing it, But we have numerous laws
regulating and protecting it, alike, for the
benefit of the master, the slave, and the COM
nun ty. Strike all these laws from our
Statute book, and what would become of the
institution Does not every body know that
it could not exist at all /? Citizens, now
owning slaves, deprived Of the lawful recog-
milton Of their rights Of ownership, and re-
fused all means Of enforcing them, would, to
all intents and purposes, be deprived Of the
rights themselves; for what are rights, un-
less recognized and protected by the law 7
Under such system, or rather owing to
such want of system, the slave, himself,
would lapse into freedom that is, fiee-negro-
ism, the master would lose bis property, and
vital interesi of the State be stricken to its
foundations. But, if such would be the ef-
feet within the State, how would it operate
beyond Who would bring slaves into a
State, where the rights of property in them,
was neither recognized, regulated, nor pro-
tected That within the State DESTROYED,
As we have seen it would, inevitably, be,
and that without deferred from coming in be-
cause of the certain destruction which await