Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-11-28
Letter from Gov. whitcomb.


Letter from Gov. whitcomb.
Editors Of the Statesman:
GENrLEMEN-In your paper of the 23d ult is an ar
tcle in relation ee-soiis it termed, and, al
though am not one of the six therein appealed to for
answer, yet am referred in that, well in
the succeeding numbers of your paper that SUBJ
ect, it will not, trust, in justice to myself be deemed
inappropriate to occupy your columns with few re-
marks.
In tbs Presidential canvass of 1913, the public mind
mainly occupied, and much divided, with the ques-
ton of slavery the Territories and especially
to the porer OF Congress to apply well as the erpe
dency of applying the principles of the Wimot Proviso
in establishing governments for them The Democratic
party OF Indiana, body so far that question
concerned occupied the ground of nOn-interventon in
other words they took the position substantially that
Congress should pass law establishing prohibiting
slavery in those territories but that the people of the
Territories themselves, emerging into State Govern
mens, should have the sole control that subject
within their respective limits Besides the intrinsic
its Of this view Of the question, it commended that
the subject would thus be thrown upon those only who
were to be Affected by it, and thus be withdrawn from
the consideration of Congress- where it had become
fruitful and alarming subject of angry controversy and
which it must be apparent is threatening the exist
ence Of the Union ITSELF can challenge the world to
say that in the several public addresses made during
that canvass and in my many private conversations then
and since ever expressed myself in the least degree ia
vorable the policy of the Wilmot Proviso, appl-
cable 10 these Territories
1t was under these circumstances that my annual mes
the Indiana Legislature. which YOU refer in
the last number of your paper. written. The posi-
ton now generally, II not universally admitted In the
free States therein repeated that the territory
ded to us by Mexico had come TO us free from the nst
tuition oil Slavery Ii also added, not that should
be - made free" imputed to me in the National Era
newspaper last summer, for that would imply action by
the passage of the Wimot Proviso, or some kindred
measure but that every constitutional and legal means
should be adopted to continue free The very phrase
employed, that every constitutional and legaf means
should be avaied Of to continue the territories Free was
in the studied brevty employed throughout the message
significant. 1t certainly implied that there were means
which had been advocated and still entertained in
some quarters, that not constitutional and legal,
and which ought not to be employed then believed,
and yet believe, that the principle Of non-intervenon
alone would ensure their remaining free. Even Southern
opinion had already been advanced to the effect,
and so general has that opinion since become that it
well known the Nashville Convention required
tal to settlement of our existing difficulties that Con-
gress should expressly recognize slavery all the
territory South OF 80 deg 80 min To this requiston
the language OF my message in direct opposition
aud hope is unnecessary to add that my action since
IN Congress- has been in strict conformity with it, that
respect.
So Tar the message from being opposed to non-in
eryenton that the former observance of that principle
in the case of Florida although ceded to STARE
territory, expressly referred to without disappro-
baton, and a reason why the South would now have
no cause Of complaint by rs application
rtores TO continue them free That the message was
further shown by the fact that after formally
written to by r. H. Rousseau, Esq, member of the
House and also by Messrs Mllken, Evans Day. Carver
gan and Buckles, of the Senate, expressly enquring
of me:
q Do you believe that Congress possesses the pow
er under the Constitution to prohibit slavery in said
territories"
"W you il elected to the United States Senate, use
your influence and for the passage of prohib-
ting slavery In New Mexico and California;"
This enquiry the part highly respectable and
intelligent gentlemen, wholly useless if it had been
considered that had already expressed
In the message, to the Wimot Proyso TO any other
of Congress- having the effect of prohibiting sa-
very in the territories. My letter in the above
inquiries, published in the last number Of your paper.
To the first nterrogatory, Messrs. Owen, Hannegan,
Law, and Chamberlain, then also candidates for the
Senate responded in the Affirmative appears by their
published letters They all entertained the opinion that
Congress possesses the power prohibit slavery in the
territories As the second ntcrrogatory, also Messrs
Law and Chamberlain, explicitly pledged themselves in
its favor Mr. flanagan, although declining any pledge
said: upon the subject involved in all its bearings
should be elected Senator for the ensuing term shall
be governed by the instructions of the Legislature of
Indiana, whose will it will be my highest pleasure
carry out in earnestness and good faith" Mr.. Owen
frankly stated at some length his opposition TO the Will
Proviso, practice calculated unnecessarily to
rrtate the Southern mind &C.. but willing for the
passage by Congress Of act joint resolution de-
claratory of the Of that body that the territory
IS free. forbear giving of these well written
letters than barely sufficient for my present purpose
because il their entre publication deemed in the least
degree material they quite accessible for that OBJ
ject.
On reference to my letter, it will be that it
neither of the inerrogatories in the affirmative
II had had doubts the consttuonalty of the
Wimot Proviso, the obvious and natural expression
would have been say On the contrary the follow
ing positions taken:
lst. That the territory to free, by its
laws, from the institution oil slavery 3D. That slavery
could not exist there or elsewhere without positive
law for that purpose. Sd. That was opposed to the
passage Of any such law by Congress and as the Ter
roral Legislature the only remaining source from
which the passage OF such law could be looked for
that believed Congress could consttuonaly so organ
ganze the government Of the Territory prohibit
law and 9TH. That was in favor of that course Of
policy"
Besides the constitutional Of prevention
sstance 10 any attempt to establish slavery there by law
here an acfre means so Ear as Congress was con-
cerned, which could in my opnion be constitutionay
used for that purpose 1t in fact the principle Of
the Clayton Compromise Bill as usually termed, which
had passed the Senate the previous Of Congress
and had failed in the House. The Territory being free
and as that bill prohibited its Legislature from either es
tahlishing excluding slavery it is manifest if this
bill had passed. that thrust have remained free until
the people in forming State Constitution should exer
else their right Of finally controlling the whole
matter
This means, have said, could be consttutonally
used The docfrina OF nonnteryentor at that time
generally favored by the South, although considerable
change seems to have occurred since. Many Southern
members OF Congress, Mr.. Calhoun, believe, inclu-
ded > voted for the Clayton Compromise Bill, and