The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-22

freedom, and deny his services to bis master The
question then would be carried TO the Supreme Court Of
the United States, whether citizen OF the United States
under the constitution OF the United States, could carry
his slave property into Territory where there were no
municipal regulations upon the subject OF slavery That
would be new question.
Now do not wish 20 argue The point, bulo set myself
right | dot believe il is in the power OF Congress to
regulate the question Of slavery do not consider the
effort TO repeal the New Mexican law establishing OF
prohibiting slavery, bat merely removing an mpelimenl
not pn upon usby The legislative power oil the country
any more than was The established religion OF New Mex
leo BY the operation OF constitution, that institution
il repealed Many Of my friends contend thai The laws
Of the country there, by the operation Of the constitution
OF the United States, repealed. II they
repealed, what is the condition of the country
There Is no municipal regulation. and i You
carry slave there, the question still comes up The
vote shall give will not interfere with the question o.
the principle OF non-ineryention nor will II ~ the least
disturb The agitation as I, y now existing NORTH and
clared establishing prohibiting slavery. Hence IL is
lsay shall give my vote Tor this proportion TO remove
this impeachment am not leg'slaing for the establish
ment Of slavery al all am merely voting to repeal
impedmen brought upon by the treaty making power
and not by the constitution OF the United States; and any
impedment otherwise brought against my constitutional
right hold that Congress has the power repeal And
when become charged with meding with The question
OF slavery. and that the powers OF Congress shall be In
teryened, maintain, and wish TO be distinctly under
stood that my view is that Congress cannot upon
the subject of slavery That Is very distinct question
from Congress leglsa,ng upon those questions mparng
the rights OF any portion OF the people Of the United
States.
MI WALKER here submitted some remarks, which
are withheld Tor revision.
Mr. BADGER Mr. President, like the senator from
Wisconsin, am entirely calm, and, like him. desire to take
very dispassionaie view OF the question: undercon
sderation by the Senate BY amendment made to this
bill by the honorable senator from Florida, lMr YULEE
the laws and constitution OF tn United States, far as
they locally applicable were exandedto these Terrific
ries II follows, as necessary and inevitable result
that ii there be any right there, under the constitution
n
any local law existing these Territories, the necessary
and inevitable elect Of this provision extend ng the
sliiuton of The United Saies these Territories, is to
repeal and abrogale whatever there j. lnthe local laws Of
that country opposed 10 the rights hold under the
constitution and laws OF the United States.
Now, Mr.. President, there is nothing IN the amend.
ment--if am able to understand t--propcsed BY the
honorable senator from Mississippi Mr. DAvis] which
does anything that Is not accomplished by The amendment
adopted the motion OF the senator from Florida, (Mr
YULEEl The constitution and laws OF The United States
are ny that amendment put in force IN the Territories
shall not undertake to say what Is meaat By putting in
force the constitution there entertain opinions upon
that subject which do agree with those embraced bya
number OF genamen here hut 10 the present. question
that is immaetia The constitution put in force there
H. then, there be right held by any man 10 America
under the constitution, is perfectly clearihe constu
ton being the supreme law and by that enactment put in
force there--that every local law, usage and Gus
tom disappears, and is dispersed before the superior
authority OF that higher law put in force there, 10
wit: the constitution of the United States Again.
i there be any right held BY any citizen OF the
erty is nothing but right-that law OF the United
States is put in force there. And il put in force there
OF the law that preexisted there is abrogaed
Subsequent laws always repeal former ones Then Mr.
President, what is proposed be accomplished BY the
amendment OF the senator from Mississippi What is
it, sir That all laws parts oil laws asages or
toms preexisting in the Territories acquired oy the Uni
ted States IRON Mexico, and which in said Territories
restricts abrdge, ohsruct the full enjoS OF any
right OF person property by citizen Of the United
States, recognised guaranteed by the constitution
and laws OF the United States hereby declared and
shall be held as repealed In other words, that
the previous amendment having put force the consn
ton there, aud il being supposed there right held
der the constitution which opposed TO The local laws
this amendment proposes to declare that such local
laws shall be repealed But, being manifest that the
instant any such conflict exists between the constitution
OF the United States and the local law, the local law
yields and the constitution regnstha the right must be
enforced and the obstruction be removedhis provision
is, in my judgment, utterly and absolutely unnecessary
and imperative Therefore, sir, though in my judgment.
immaerla in itself, yet nasmuch as il can accomplish
results which viii not be accomplished by the pro.
vision of the bill TO which have reered-whle, II
adopted il may have the effect OF delaying the progress
OF the bll--as il is in one view useless, and 10 the
other mischievous shall vote against il. That is all
sir, desire TO say
On motion, the Senate adjourned.