The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-03-18

restriction not within the true scope of the Con-
stitution.
"On the alternative presented by the second
point there can be no room. with the cool and
did, for blame in those acquiescng in a conciato-
ry course, the demand for which was deemed
gent and the course itself deemed not irreconcila
BILE with the Constitution.
8" This is the hasty view have taken of the sub
ject. am aware that may be suspected OF being
Influenced by the habit of guarded construction
OF constitutional powers; and haUs certainty JeH
all The influence that could Justly f0io from comic
fion that nhoed dispersion qf the sLaves noio
ioin the United States not only best for me ma
fio but most Favorable for the siapss Also both as 10
their prospects Of emancipation and as 10 IheU CON
dillon IN the time"
Rut the advocates of the constitutional power rely
upon precedent, and confidently point TO the ordi
nance of 1887. What strength does this give them,
RIGHTLY understood? That ordinance was not passed
,,d,r our Constellation. but before its adoption
How them can il be regarded an Interpretation
of the Constitution when, at its passage, the Con-
stiuton was in the womb of futurity SO far then,
as the precedents of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Mich
gan and Wisconsin, (the five States carved out of
the Northwestern Territory are invoked, upon
examination, they rest upon the "baseless fabric
Of vision.
As TO the reason of the passage of the ordinance
of 1887 under the old Confederation listen again TO
Mr.. Madison:
~ hare Observed yet, in of the pietos taken
Of The ordinance Of 1857, interdiciing slavery north
that ishen upassed Congress had no authority 10 pro-
hiBt the Importation Of slapes from abroad; that all the
States had and some tcee an the full exercise Of the
right TO import them; and, consequently that there
mode in psich Congress could check the eril,
but the indirect Of narrowing the space open for
he reception Of Sldpes.
s'Had federal authority then eristed to prohibit,
directly and totally the Importation from abroad can
Il be doubted that IL tc0uid hare been ersrted and that
regulation hacing merely the effect Of preventing the
interior disposition Of siaues actually in the United
States and creating distinction among the States in
the degrees Of their sovereignty, tcoid not haze been
adopted, perhaps thought of?' Mr.. Madison to
Mr. Monroe, February 10Th, 1920.
Mark, ponder well, and apply the testimony Of
James Madison The ordinance of 'S7 was passed,
because the old Confederation had not the power to
abolish the 1fican slave trade. IL was intended
an indirect blow at that trade, by narroioing the
space open for the reception Of Slaves
"Had a federal authority then existed, such as
is given under the present Constitution, Mr.. Madi
son gives it as his opinion that the ordinance of
S7 ',ootid not hare been adopted perhaps thought
g" Who so competent to give an opinion as that
good and great man, who was an actor in the
scenes of that day? What then becomes of the
boasted precedent Of the ordinance of S7?
The Missouri compromise is next relied on as
furnishing precedent The circumstances under
which it passed weakens, if it does not destroy its
force. The country convulsed and the Union
III danger. Statesmen might and no doubt did re-
gard il as a great State necessityif violation of
the Constitution, the wound was inflicted to save
a
the Constitution, it was by northern men--it was
forced the South by the North. Yet the South,
loving the Union, for peace and harmony, have
always been willing to abide by, and extend that
compromise Not so with the North.
But in further reply to the argument of prece-
dent, quote from great statesman of the age:
"When gentlemen attempt to carry this measure
upon the ground OF acquiescence or precedent, do
they forget that we are not in Westminster Hall?
In courts of justice the utility of uniform decision
cxacts of the judge conformity TO the adjudica-
ton of his predecessor. In the Interpretation and
administration of the law this practice is wise and
proper; and without it, every thing depending
upon the caprice of the Judge, we should have no
security for dearest rights. II is far otherwise
uhen applied 10 the source Of legislation Here no
rule crisis but the CONSTITUTIONS and To legislate
upon the ground merely that predecessors
thought themselves authorized, under similar cir
cumsances, to legislate is to sancfy error and to
| pcrpetuate usurpation."
"This doctrine of precedents, applied to the legis
iat,ue, appears to me to be fraught with the most
mschievous consequences. The great advantage
OF our system OF government over all others s that
we have tcTitfen constitution, defining its limits,
and prescribing its authorities; and that however,
| for time, faction may convulse the nation, and
passion and party prejudice sway its functionares,
the season of reflection will recur when, calmly
tracing their deeds, all alterations from funda-
mental principle will be corrected. But once sub.
sttutc practice for principle the exposition Of the
Constitution for the teri Of the Constitution and in
vain snail look Tor instrument the
ment itself II will be diffused and intangible
the pretended constitution of England, and must
be sought for in the statute book in the fugitive
journals of Congress- and in reports of the Secretary
| OF the Treasury. What would be our condition il
| We we're to take the interpretations given TO that
sacred book which is ought 10 be, the criterion
| of our faith, for the book itself? We should find
the holy Bible buried beneath the interpretations,
CLOSES and comments of councils, synods, and
learned divines, which have produced swarms OF
intolerant and furious sccts partaking less of the
| mildness and meekness of their origin than Of n
vindctive spirit of hostility towards each other.
| They ought 10 afford a solemn warming TO make
that Constitution trhich tDs haze stoorn 10 support Our
inrUiabts guide. "-Mr. Cay's Speech in Senate Of
| the United States, ISL
| Mr.. Chairman, have ] not established that the
Wilmot proviso is unconstitutional Congress has
| no power TO pass it,
| The South made great concessions, in voting
| with such unanmty for the "Clayton compromise
| bill" She thus manifested her deep devotion to
| the Union. Most southern men (and with them
thought that the shield Of the Constitution would
protect slave property carried To the Territories
But southern men, of eminent abilities, high legal
attainments, and elevated position, differed, and
were unwilling to make the surrender, they
| thought, OF southern rights. The question was u
| be decided by the Supreme Court. The owner OF
slaves would necessarily have involved himself in
expensive and harassing litigation This consider
alton would, certainly, have prevented many from
being taken there. The South did not think the
Territories would be proper theatre for slave la
Dor She did not mean, however, 10 yield the prin-
ciPle that the precedent might hereafter be urged
4 against her. The North concurred in the opinion
that nature had marked il the proper theatre for
free labor, yet in the arrogance Of power she de-
manded the precedent that in these Territories
and In all which might be thereafter acquired. "
slavery should be interdicted. Waving my opin-
ION as 20 the safety Of slave property carried 70
these Territories, readily admit that the national
opinion seems 10 be against the legality Of slavery
there, without legislation; and from this in con-
junction with the expressed opinion Of one, IL not
more, Of the judges Of the Supreme Court, ] would
| now have no confidence in that tribunal deciding
in favor Of the South. Am not correct, then thai
the South made great concessions for the peace and
harmony Of this Union in voting for the "Clayton
| compromise billy'
II have sustained the position that the Wimot
proviso is unconstitutional, ! think can make il
clear that Congress has the potrer and il IL its dufy
70 leRsote for the protection Of slave property car
| RED there.
The Territories are the common property of ths
States Of this Union. The States have the right e
require such legislation may be necessary pro
tect the property of its citizens who may choose 1,
emigrate. II, under the Mexican law the cottons
the wcoens, the machinery, and all the manufac
tories of Massachusetts interdictcd in, Ca for
mia, there serious doubt of their safety unde
a - - A 81 =