The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-07-24
DAILY.

n "a
slavery was to be recognized south OF that
line and prohibited north Of it. Indeed it
may be said that the South ever since 1920
have shown willingness to abide by the
principle Of division Of the territory; their
representatives have voted for il whenever
It was presented. Sir, l believe that a
majority Of the South would be quoted and
be content with the adoption Of that principle
now; and when say that principle, mean
not in the letter but in the spirit Of the Mis-
souri, Compromise But that is not the only
mode in which they have agreed to settle
the difficulty
They once proposed to settle on the prin-
ciple Of the social possession Of the territory:
upon the principle that each should enjoy all
for that was the principle, if | understand
it, of what was called the Clayton compro-
mise bill. When the territories were first
acquired, and neither section had the start Of
the other, it was proposed to establish terri
toriSl governments, and to establish the con-
stitution Of the United States by express en-
actment in the territories, in order to exclude
the idea that the Constitution did not GO there.
1t did more the bill required the protection
Of property in slaves, if the courts should
decide that it existed. This implication, l
think, is conclusive and necessary, when we
look at the history Of the legislation upon
the bill. As it came in originally, il requir-
ed the Territorial government to pass 9 no
law respecting African slavery" That
clause was afterwards stricken out, and in
its place provision was substituted, that
they should pass no law prohibiting or sstab-
fishing African slavery. What other inter-
ference could be drawn from that course Of
legislation, except that they were to protect
property in slaves, in the event the courts
decided that such property existed there }
The very course Of legislation in relation to
it demonstrated that this was the intention OF
the bill, and it has been SO construed. If
that bill failed in any respect to provide for
the social possession of the country by all
the States of the Union, on the principle
that each should enjoy all, it was in not pro-
viding by an express declaration that the
Mexican law did not exist there. 1t was
not asked for, because most Southern men
believed that the Constitution was superior to
the Mexican law, and repealed and put It
aside; it was not asked for, because it was
supposed that the courts would respect our
rights but believe that, if it had been,
the demand would have been nothing more
than what is right and just that is, ASSUME
ing that all the States are tenants in COM
mon, and each ought to enjoy all, or else have
fair division Of the territory. II this be
so, then whatever legal obstacles may exist
in relation to the enjoyment Of this right,
ought to be removed by Government. This,
however, all depends, on the truth of the
proposition which / have stated as to the
right Of the States in this respect but, if it
be true, the conclusion which have drawn
seems to follow inevitably. In relation to
this Clayton compromise, | think ! may
hazard two, and perhaps three propositions,
without fear of contradiction. In the first
place, j hazard this affirmation: that if that
billhad proposed to take in all the territory
included within the limits of California, and
apply the Wilmot Proviso to it, and then to
extend the Clayton compromise over the resi-
due, no Southern man would have voted for
it. think am not mistaken in that. And
/ will now hazard another proposition. 1.-THE
Southern men had believed that the Mexi-
can law existed in the territory, and was not
repealed by the Constitution after its acquisi-
ton, think that none Of them would have
voted for the bill without provision to re-
peal that law, because, if Congress had no
right to interfere by Legislation to shut us
out, would it not be absurd to say that it had
no right to prevent the laws Of a foreign and
conquered nation from excluding us I If |
am right in this, there is perhaps another
proposition which might also hazard, though,
possibly, with more risk Of contradiction.
We Of the South believe that the Mexican
law was repealed by the acquisition Of the
territory, but if we had beloved that the
threats and declarations Of the supremacy Of
the Mexican law, made by so many distin-
guished jurists, would operate to prevent the
holders of slaves-and all property holders
are timid--from going with their property
into the newly-acquired territories, under the
apprehension, in the unsettled state Of the
question, that they would thereby hazard
their property say, if Southern men had
seen that such would be the effect, am in
cliaed to think they would certainly have de-
handed a declaratory act saying that the
Mexican law was not in force. And they
would have done so strictly in accordance
with the principle Of non-intervention, rs
l understand that principle, and in the
only sense in which can accord and accedc
to it. That doctrine, if understand it, is
one which proposes to leave the question Of
slavery or no slavery in the territories to be
determined by soil and climate-leaving it
to nature while they exist as territories, and
to the people when they come in as States,
to determine the character of their institu-
tons in this respect. That understand to
be the non-intevention principle. Well, if
soil and climate are to decide, then it follows
that Congress cannot interfere by legislation
to establish or prohibit it. Not only the
Legislation Of Congress cannot do that, but
the Mexican legislation cannot do it, because,
if the Mexican law interviewed, the question
would he determined hv n and not hv soil