The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-02-13

lished or made territorial government under any
power derived from this clause of the Constitution;
and that there was no judicial decision TO sustain
such doctrine.
The power 10 form governments for the Terrific
res was derived from the treaty making power; Or
more properly speaking, from derivative OF the
treaty making power. In all the treaties by which
territory has been ceded the United States, the
right Of sovereignty has been transferred; and in
the sovereignty you have the power to govern. And
this was the reason that there was no express grant
in the Constitution Of power to form territorial
governments. At the time of the adoption of the
Constitution, the territory of the United States
that called the Northwest Territory; which belonged
to Virginia. This territory coded 10 the United
States by Virginia, and the right of sovereignty
was given up. No man would pretend TO say that
before that ccsson Virginia had no right 10 estab-
lish government there; and after the cession the
United States had by the cession all the rights Vir
ginia had. Here was where the power TO form ter
ritorial governments for the Northwest Territory
was derived.
The sovereignty over the territory now forming
the States Of Alabama and Mississippi had been
ceded by Georgia to the United States, and thus
she derived her power to form territorial govern
ments although in that case the act of cession
stipulated that the United States would establish
territorial governments there. The cession to the
United States by North Carolina Of the territory Of
Tennessee was exactly similar. In the same man
ner did the United States derive her power the
territory Of Louisiana; the sovereignty was coded
with the land.
The next question taken up was the alleged fire.
qucnt exercises by Congress OF the power now
claimed. The act of Congress of 1888, prohibiting
the importation of slaves into the territory of Mis-
sssipp from without the limits of the United States
was often quoted exercise of that power Was
this the exercise Of that power now invoked! II
was not. Congress had the power to limit foreign
trade; but, under the article in the Constitution,
Congress was inhibited from prohibiting the i'm
portaton of slaves till the year 1905 This inhibi
ton was to the passage of any prohibitory law
against importing slaves into the several States,
leaving Congress free to act upon prohibiting the
importation into Territories. But Congress never
attempted, it is proposed to do, to prohibit
the emgrant from the slavehoding States going
with his slaves into the Territory The act OF 1904
prohibited the importation of slaves into Louisiana
for the purposes Of SALE but reserved to the settler
the right to migrate there with his slaves. The
acts of 1877, '1S and 'l9, were acts necessary to
carry out the laws upon the prohibition of the slave
trade. But it was said that in adopting the Mis-
souri, compromise line, for which southern men had
voted, it was then admitted that Congress had
the power to inhbt slavery south OF that line and
that if Congress has the power to nhibit it in any
portion of the Territory, it has in all
He believed that 30 far as the South had any
agency in the matter, the country was then in an
alarming crisis, and that, without yielding their
denial Of the power OF Congress to pass such laws,
they acquiesced for the purpose Of peace and har-
mony. He believed now firmly, that Congress has
no such power, but if he could see by adopting that
line any prospect Of peace, he would do 30, and
sumo the responsibility ofexercsing power which
he did not believe to exist. He confident that
framed on an elementary principle of equality, and
unless power granted in express terms, it
could not be implied when its existence would de-
stroy the elementary principle.
The question was, whether citizen OF the United
States has the right to with his slaves to the
Territories of California and New Mexico. This
right was resisted on several grounds. 1t was said
that slavery exists only by force of positive law,
and only within the jurisdiction of that State where
such positive law was in operation. This was ut
terly unfounded in historical fact Slavery existed
in all the British colonies and provinces without
law. 1t was true statutes could be found regulat-
Slavery does exist by virtue of statute law, be-
cause it existed before any statute law on the
subject.
Slavery existed in Massachusetts without law.
In that State it was not confined TO Africans but to
Indians Was there any law in Massachusetts
authorizing the reduction of Indians TO slavery and
sending them to the West Indies for sale? Slavery
did not exist in Georgia when it was settled; but
statutes can be found regulating it after it was in
troduced. Slavery then depends something
without the statutes The history of the introduc-
ton of slavery into the colonies had been written by
a citizen Of free State (Mr Bancroft); and by
perusa OF that history, it would appear that nearly
all of those brought here slaves were the time
of being so brought, in state of the most abject
slavery In their own country, and were the pro-
perty of their lords, or chiefs; and he would sug-
gest that those who feel such sympathy for slaves
here, in the modified form Of slavery, to reflect
upon what was the condition of these slaves in
their own country.
He denied that the State of Massachusetts, had the
power to take from IA STAKEHOLDER passing through
that State with his property, the slave, on the
ground that, the slave being on free territory, he
was free. He could never recognise such doctrine
till II was sustained by higher authority than that
which had decided it to be correct. The Constitu-
ton allowed a slave owner to 60 into free State
and <lutF n ala D.v.of atsrz
recognised his right to hold his slave in his own
State, and without his State and the right 10 go into
another State with his slaves, where slavery is pro-
hibited by competent authority, why should he be
denied the right to take his slave into territory the
Of the whole Unioni
The next point wac, whether there was law in
Mexico abolishing slavery. II was stated that, at
the time Of the cesson to the United States Of those
territories slavery had been abolished by laws and
that such laws were in force in California and New
Mexico, and that consequently slavery was now
prohibited. He aware of the decree of the die
tator 1929 and Of the act of the Mexican
Congress III 1881 No higher evidence that this decree
of 1929 not obligatory could be required than the
subsequent enactment Of the Mexican Congress.
The decree said slavery should no longer exist in
Mexico. II this decree were in the least binding,
where the necessity for the subsequent act of Con-
gress; what slavery did the enactment of Congress
abolish which the decree of Guerrero did aboshl
Had the Mexican Congress the constitutional
power TO abolish slavery? The constitution Of that
country was founded on our own, and he had looked
in vain into that constitution to find any power in
Congress TO interfere with the domestic institution
But it had been said that the Congress Of the United
States not the proper party TO inquire into the
validity Of the acts Of foreign government. He
held il to be well-establshed principle that upon
the ccsson Of one territory TO another and foreign
power, the public political laws of the ccded ter.
rtories ceased to operate and the civil municipal
laws only continued to exist Was this law, ad-
hitting 1t 10 be operative, public or private
picipal act. He regarded il as public and polit-
cal act, and as such ceased TO operate when the
cession took place.
If Congress had the power 10 interfere with the
institution Of slavery in the territories, would the
exercise of that power be in good faith fair or ex
pedicnH When the Senator from Kentucky was
discussing the resolution declaring il inexpedient
to abolish slavery in this District without certain
conditions, he said that to do so would be viola
ton Of good faith, violation Of the contract with
Maryland and Virginia in the cession of the Dis
trict and Of the principles of eternal justice. He
differed with the Senator the power Of Congress
to abolish slavery here II there WINS an implied
obligation between the Government and the States
making the ccssion, that the powers Of Congress
over this District should Be exercised TO their
detriment or injury; If this implied faith was n
part OF the contract IL formed the eescpcc OF the