The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-06-17


municipal law of the place where it exists; and if
prohibited by law in these Territories at the
time Of the conquest, it cannot exist there until
the laws of the place be altered by the competent
Z law making power for the Territory. In regard
to these Territories and the rights of the South,
hold that when the stipulations in the late treaty
shall be complied with, and the money paid hch
. is provided for in it, they will constitute
QUESTION, made at the cost of the common blood
and treasure of the whole Union, towards which
the South contributed as generously as the North,
and in which the South is entitled to a just and
equal participation and that it is the duty of Con-
gress TO to il that the just and equal rights Of
my section are guarded, protected, and secured
by all necessary legislation. The right to acquire
and TO hold Territory brings with it the duty to
govern it. The Supreme Court has SO decided,
and, in governing, it is the duty of Congress to
ac Justly and fairly towards the rights and inter
ests of all who entitled to equal share in the
common domain. The same position, see, was
taken by meeting of the Democratic party in the
city of Macon, in my own State, not long since.
Amongst other resolutions, see in the papers,
they declared
''That our Senators and Representatives in Con-
gress should to it, that the rights of the south
ern people should not be endangered during the
period the Territories shall remain under the
troll Of the United States, either from the contin
uancc of the municipal laws of Mexico, or from
the Legislation of the United States"
Weunderstand that the Hon. ROBERT TooMBs,
another distinguished representative from Geor-
gia, concurred in opinion with his colleague,
Mr.. STEPHENS, as to the fact of the exclusion
Of slavery from New Mexico by the municipal
laws which existed at the time of the conquest,
and that until those laws are altered by the com
petent lawmaking power of the Territory, sla
very cannot exist there. Now, the compro-
mise plan not only does not evoke the power Of
Congress to alter the municipal laws Of New
Mexico which prohibit slavery, and thereby
open that Territory to the Southern slavehold
ers, but it absolutely prohibits the territorial l
gislatare from repeating them, and from pro-
viding by territorial Legislation for the adms-
sion of slavery, if the people Of the Territory
should at any time desire its introduction among
them
We are aware that among the eminent jurists
of the South there is diversity of opinion as to
the effect of the existing prohibitory laws of
New Mexico-some of them contending that
notwithstanding the existence of those laws,
every STAKEHOLDER has, by the Constitution Of
the United States, a right to carry and hold
his slaves in that Territory, while others main
tain that he has not. But there can be no
doubt as to the true meaning and extent of the
right claimed by the great mass of the southern
people, without respect to party, 10 just and
equal participation in the territory acquired at
the cost of the common blood and treasure of
the whole Union. They understood and main
tanned, not only that they had right, under the
Constitution, to carry slaves into that Territory
and hold them there, but that it was the duty
of Congress to remove all impediments to their
full enjoyment of that right. And, if the right
existed there certainly was corresponding
duty on the part of Congress TO remove, by APP
proprate legislation, all obstacles to its free
and unfettered exercise This, the compro-
mise plan does not do, nor attempt to do, and
the practical effect of the omission is as effec-
tually TO exclude the Southern Shareholder
territory acquired from Mexico, as could be
done by the Wilmot proviso itself. For, what
Shareholder will take his slaves TO that Terri
tory, with all the doubts and uncertainties
hanging over his right to do so-the compro-
mise plan having failed 10 assert that right and
to provide for its exercise-where he would be
Immediately involved in expensive lawsuits
which would be at once brought to test his
right to hold them, and which might, in the
end, cost him more than they were WORTH
How much better off will the Southern slave
holder, who would like TO emigrate TO Mex
under the Wilmot proviso itself2 He can
not, OF he pM not, take his slaves there
under the compromise plan, nor could he
do under the proviso. But it may be
said, that if he possesses a right, under
the Constitution, to take his slaves TO New
der the compromise plan. Well, so he could,
under the proviso! The proviso could not de-
prve him Of his constitutional rights. The SUI
preme Court would as effectually protect him
in the enjoyment of them under the proviso, as
it can under the compromise plan! In a practi-
cal point of view, therefore, as between the
compromise and the proviso, so far as the rights
and interests Of the South are concerned. cit is
just six Of one and half dozen Of the other /"
II any Southern advocate Of the former places
his support Of it upon the ground that, although
in reality il amounts 10 nothing, il is all the
South could get-or upon the ground that the
existing Mexican laws interpose nsuperable bar
rers to the introduction Of slavery into the Ter
rtory-or upon the ground that, although the
Southern STAKEHOLDER does possess right, IN
der the Constitution, TO take his slaves thither.
and hold them there, yet, as Congress will not
recognise that right, and make adequate pro-
vision for its exercise and enjoyment, no other
alternative remains 10 the South but acquies-
cence OF disunion, and that the former is greatly
to be preferred, --ifany Southern advocate of the
Compromise places his support of it on these
grounds. he will be acting a fair, manly, open
part. But il he places his support Of the mea-
sure upon the alleged ground, that il contains
some great concession TO the SOuth-something