The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-06-26
Vol. l..


over the Territories, and on three several occa-
sions--under protest and by compromise, however
the precise act OF nterdicting slavery III portions
of them has been executed by the concurrence Of
the different branches Of the General Government.
On the other hand, il has been urged with
zeal certainly as honest, and must think with a
stronger display Of justice, that power not ex-
prcssly granted in the Constitution 10 this Gov.
eminent, cannot be rightly implied, or inferred,
by virtue OF IT, ia precise opposition 10 It's principles
and spirit, this is believed TO be. Is il allow
able to search the general grants Of power in the
Constitution in quest of latent or incidental fac
ulty, which, put forth, proves to be at variance
alike with the relations of the parties to the in
strument, the objects Of their union, and the OBJ
servancc of the most commonplace ideas Of justice
and equality among them' Especially, is it in
sisted that it cannot be said to be, in any just
sense Of the term, +" constitutional for the Fed
eral Government TO hamper Or abridge the enjoy
ment Of rights OF properly Of the citizens of the
States, secured to them by the laws of their States
respectively, and guaranteed by the fundamental
law of its own being. Such, it so happens, is
slavery as it stands related to both the laws Of the
slavcholding States and the Constitution of the
United States. And must it not be conceded, on
all sides, that If such power have found way
into the Constitution il can only have been con-
veyed thither as an unobseryed ingredient of a
main power, having not the remotest designed bear
ing the point in controversy, and never revolyed
in the thoughts of the trainers of the Government
in connection with such an exercise of i'll Could
it be, then, satisfactorily shown to be involved
or resulting power or faculty in our hands, so
gross peryersion of it to purposes Of injustice as
would be its universal application to our common
territories, would not only justify, but demand,
the sternest resistance.
I have thus but pointed to the leading sources
of the diversity in judgment that has ever existed
on this mooted point Multiplied and involved,
AS investigation has only proved it to be, in its
windings, as were the labarynths of old, unlike
them it seems to have no sure clue to an escape
1t is related, Mr.. Chairman, that when Alexander
the Great found himself unable to disentanglc the
knot which the kingly Gordius tied in the harness
of his chariot as the test of the skill OF him who,
by oracular interpretation, was to be the future
conquerer of the world, he cut it asunder with his
sword, and thus advanced on the objects of his
grand contemplations. Let us, like others who
have preceded us here, avoiding the errors Of his
ambition, profit by the courage and wisdom Of this
example,
Nor am able to perceive any great weight in
that standing charge Of Inconsistency with which
we are assailed, for dsputing in argument the
constitutional authority of Congress to prohibit
slavery, and yet consenting to the passage of the
Missouri compromise line. Is it ncomprehensible
that we should feel justified in drawing arguments
from welf-founded doubts as to the existence of a
power against an extortionate and oppressive use
Of it, and, avaing ourselves Of the authority of
the history of legislation, be at the same time will
ing to unite with it's advocates in such appIica
ton of it will subserve at once the public justice
and the demands of great public emergency i
Wise and good men it seems, have on occasions
heretofore borne this criticism. And now, one
word more sir, to the effect of the line, on the
suppositon that the denial of the right to pass il
should be well founded. Obviously it would be
this, that south of the line the act passed here
would take effect in protecting the stakeholder,
because passed in erecuon Of The Constitution, while
north of it, it could not harm him, because, as
being opposed TO The Constitution it would be simply
null and poid. Argument can scarce make this
proposition palmer: for If the Constitution, en-
proprio pigore convey slavery into these terrific
ries, the argument is manifestly but the stronger
for the passage of legislation here, to secure the
convenient use Of it there, while no law Of this
Congress proposing to abridge right guaranteed
by the Constitution can have any validity. Nor
could such discovery ustifiably excite any other
feeling than that Of universal regret that large
portion of the citizens of the country had MOI
been supplied with legal remedies and social
securities commensurate with their fundamental
rights.
II is thus seen that totally disagree with certain
reasoners who insist that the power Of this Gov
eminent to protect the institution Of slavery in the
territories, involves with it either by necessary
connection or rational analogy, the power to pro-
hbit it there. On the contrary, the power of Gov
eminent to prohibit il, in the premises, SO far from
being in its nature the counter part of, or logically
connected with, the power to protect it, would be
more aptly described as its opposite. The two
may, like other dissimilar powers, coexist in the
same hands, but can be by no means dependent
on each other. &r
One other objection to this mode is, that il would
be harsh use of power on the part Of this Gov
ernment TO repeal existing laws, if such there be,
in these territories, prohibtory of slavery therein,
or otherwise to interfere with the policy In this re-
spect present or future, of the inhabitants Of them
Is not this objection rather plausible than substan
tial? On what principle Of public law, or of public
justice, sir, can the Mexican Inhabitants of these
provinces claim to exclude our institutions and
forms of labor repeat it in no sense OF idle tn
umph or levity--,Ce hare conquered and purchased
them. And what, after all, is the nature and ex.
tent Of the proposed interference with them IL
is in effect that in order to accommodate and
certain conflicting interests among the proprietors
of these domains, particular form of labor be
forbidden to enter certain portions Of them and
permitted to enter certain other portions of them,
until the occasion for the formation of State cons
tutions shall arrive--tbat period when general
causes shall have maturcd their judgments respect
lively as to their more permanent wants--at which
time the whole subject is, by the plan proposed,
to pass into their own hands exclusively. Would
it not be stretch of sensibty itself to persevere
in this objecton' And must insist that the duty
in this particular goes along with the right.
Justly, humanely, as hope we shall act on this,
on ali occasions, must sill remain true that the
first and highest obligation we owe is TO the great
body Of the people of this Confcderacy, in whom
the true and substantial ownership Of these terri
torial possessions lies.
Perhaps the most invetcrate objection TO this
plan is, that its application would divide the bound
aries of California. Aud why, sir, is it, that the
reception Of California without terms, into the
Union, should be deemed irreslstibIe' Is there an
overwhelming necessity upon us to admit her, and
without terms 1t has ever been agreed to By
the most Jealous defenders of popular sovereignty,
that the supervision, by this Government, of the
boundaries Of territorial applicants for membership
in the Confederacy is, in all circumstances, but the
performance of a plain duty. On the contrary, 10
admit California in her present circumstances with
the modification proposed, even, is, manifcstly, in
the exercise of discretionary authority 10 ,caire
great irregularities in her procedure. Meaning no
disrespect to her, she can only be received on her
present motion, by the generous forbearance OF
the Government. And, sir, all the sources of tina,