The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-02-06

his .e3olutions accomplished a. end. He believed
that IN all o0ncessons by ono section, they should
receive q compensationi and by q careful and calm
considerations Of the resolutoLs this would appear
to be carried out
In the first resolution II was said that California
should be admitted into the Union without any pro-
gentlemen from the South say that in this the North
get all they want-hat slavery is already prohibited
there, and that the ends and purposes Of the free
States have been accomplished. This 10 true. But
by whom has il been donel Has It been done by
Congress. or by. any act Of the Government No,
but by the people Of California themselves and is
1t not the doctrine Of all parties that the people OF
every State should be left free either to admit
question involved in the admission of Missouri was
whether, after State had formed constitution,
and was organised ~ . State Of the Union, Con-
greas had the power 70 control the action Of that
who favored her admission into the Union held the
doctrine that once State, she stood among her
peers equal in all respects to them, and that her
rights and powers over that subject were as clear
teen original States, and that Congress had no
authority or power to control her action in the least
respect
he thought the friends Of the wilmot proviso
should be well Satisfied with this declaration, and
with what had taken place in California. They
should remember, that If the Wilmot proviso was
enacted, its operation would cease when the State
OF the Northwest Territory, and 70 whom had been
applied the ordnance Of l7S7Illinois, Ohio, Indi-
ana and others-chose 70 alter their constitutions,
they had a. much right and power to do 90 as had
Virginia within her limits.
No one would contend that the exclusion of slave
ry by the people Of California was the act Of Con-
grcss, or Of the Government of the United States,
but il was decision Of the question by the people
Of California, by California herself, who alone had
the right TO decide II.
The second resolution Of the series was an impor-
tant one, and he begged gentlemen to look at it
calmly. He was aware, when he preparedit of the
perseverance, with which the Wilmot proviso was
pressed by the North; he aware that every free
State had expressed an opinion inits favor, and had
instructed its representatives in Congress TO
its adoption; he was aware that the northern peo-
pie considered 1t favoritc measure, and bad set
their hearts on it.. He was aware that, by asking
them to vote for this resolution, he called upon them
to abandon tho Wilmot proviso, to give it up; to
open their eyes to the danger to the country in
pressing it when there was no necessity whatever
for it..
vorite measure, he offered them the assertion, in
bis resolution, Of two clear and ndsputabe truths
They were First. That slavery does not exist in
any part Of the territories acquired from Mexico ;
and secondly, that, in our opinion, slavery never
will exist in any portion oft
He had heard it stated that the assertion Of these
truths by Congress was equal to the enactment Of
the Wilmot proviso. He did not think it was. II
solemn enactment, and II is a positive interdic-
ton of slavery there; but by this assertion we say
nothing more than that ut the present time il does
not exist there, and that, in opinion, it never
will.
He hoped that the free States would be satisfied
with this expression Of opinion, and not require
any enactment on the subject
This resolution would have been more accepta-
bic TO him without the assertion Of these two truths
than with them, but he had thought that something
should De given as compensation for the snrren-
der and compromise of feeling ON this point.
He bad no desire to make speech on each of the
resolutions, but would detain the Senate for while
in the examination ofthc truths set forth in those
olutions As to the FIRST that slavery does not exist in
any OF the Territories acquired by Mexico he would
refer to the act Of 1924 BY the supreme
of MEXICO, whereby slavery was abolished in that
nation, and the general acquiescence of all the
States OF Mexico in that abolition of slavery, down
to the time Of the treaty ceding those Territories
to the United States. This act Of the govern
ment OF Mexico was said to have been irregular,
lar, and not binding; but it not our province
foreign Powsr-to inquire into the validity Of the
municipal acts Of any government, particularly
when the people of Mexico had acquiesced in it.
Mr.. G. also read an extract from the correspond
ence OF Mr.. Trist with the government ON this
point The discussions on former occasion, when
this territory was first ceded, had left the general
impression that slavery was not In existence in
Mexico or those territories prior their cesson to
the United States. Nor could he account for its
existence there now, unless at the moment the
treaty OF cession was concluded the constitution
wa: extended over every part Of the territory and
took slavery with t.
Such doctrine was wholly irrcconcilable with
his, views and feelings. There were at the time
OF that treaty fifteen free and fifteen slave States in
the Union the institutions Of both were recognised
by the Constitution. How could Il be possible that
the Constitution in extending these territories,
could carry the principle Of slavery, and could not
carry the principles Of freedom established in one
half Of the Unionl By the laws Of Mexico. there
was no slavery In these territories At the time Of
cession; and a. no action had been taken TO intro
duce 1t there, he thought he had sufficient for
saying II did not exist there now.
The question of slavery was Invisible into two
branches slavery in the States, and slavery without
the States. Congress have powers over slavery
in the States, except in the three particulars men
toned in the Constitution. That IL, the power 10
regulate representation. the power TO levy tax,
and the powers relative 10 fugitive slaves. Beyond
this, Congress had no power over slavery in the
States. ' FlF 0lE
IfCongrcss were called upon 10 ovcrturn the In
stitotion Of slavery in the States, and such
sure was seriously thought Of then his voice would
be for war. Then case would be presented where
II would be justihable in the sight of God and Of
nations, to resist the oppression They would then
be acting in selfdefence; and the hlavc States
would then be ustifabci In resisn the act by every
means within their power; and, in civil war In
such case, they would have the sympsthies and
support Of every man who loved justice and right.
France had engaged in war 10 propagate the
rights OF man, and her fate was well known. II
we should engage in civil war about the intro
ducton Of slavery into territories where IL does not
exist, what a spectacle would be presented 70 the
world 1t would not be a war TO propagate the
rights OF man, but warto propagate wrongs OF man
Our British ancestors were blamed, and Justly,
for introducing into midst this institution; and
be, for one, would never vote for its introduction
any where, where the people did not desire II.
The question Of slavery without the limits Of the
States was n debatable one. Slavery within the
States was unbeatable. On the question Of slavery
without the States there room for difference
OF opinion, but not for such difference Of opinion
a. would lead to the breaking up Of this Govern
mcnt.
He differed widely from his friend from Michigan
(Mr CAss) ss 70 the binding authority of decisions
OF the Supreme Court, and elementary writers
on the Constitution. He regarded, that when
constitutional question once decided by compe-
tent authority, IL settled. Otherwise there was
nothing settled under the Constitution, but all
still unsettled.
He put Il TO gentlemen 70 say II there was not an
actual existing power somewhere 10 introduce or
exclude slavery from the Territories II 20, where
was the power Before the treaty with Mexico that
power was vested in Mexico. she having then the
territory and the sovereignty over IL. Mexico
parted with the territory and the sovereignty TO the