Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-05-18
SIX DOLLARS PER ANNURa.


slavery within the Territory. The effect of re-
tanning the clause as reported by the committee
will be this: that if in any of the Territories
slavery now exists, it cannot be abolished by the
Territorial Legislature; and if in any of the Ter
ritories slavery does not now exist, it cannot be
introduced by the Territorial Legislature. The
clause itself was introduced into the bill by the
committee for the purpose of tying up the hands
of the Territorial Legislature in respect to legis-
latng at all, one way or the other, upon the sub
ject of African slavery 1t was intended to leave
the legislation and the law of the respective Ter
ritories in the condition in which the act will find
| them. | stated on former occasion that | did not
in committee vote for the amendment to insert
the clause, though it was proposed to be introduce
ed by a majority of the committee. ! attached
very little consequence to it at that time, and at
tach very little to it at the present 1t u.s. perhaps,
of no practical importance whatever.
Now, sir if understand the measure proposed
by the Senator from Mississippi, it aims at the
same thing. l do not understand him as propos-
ing that if any one shall carry slaves into the
Territory, although by the law of the Territory he
cannot take them there, the Legislative hands of
the Territorial Government should be so tied as to
prevent its saying he shall not enjoy the fruits of
their labor. If the Senator from Mississippi means
| to say that
Mr. DAVIS of Mississippi. l do mean to say
| it.
| Mr. CLAY. If the object of the Senator is to
provide that slaves may be introduced into the
Territory contrary to the ler l0ci and, being in
troduced, nothing shall be done by the Legislature
toi impair the rights of owners to hold the slaves
thus brought contrary to the local laws certain
ly cannot vote for it. In doing so, shall repeat
again the expression of opinion which, announced
at an early period of the session. think that the
| language of the amendment which the Senator
| has lie q G
stricted as is the language of the bill which he
| proposes to strike out His amendment does not
provide in express terms for the privilege OF in
Producing slaves, but merely declares that the Ter
ritorial Legislature shall not interfere with the
rights of property in slaves that property exists
in certain class of States. Very well. The
Legislature is already restrained from so Interior
ing unless slaves are brought in contrary to the
lea zoci If they be so brought in, then the
amendment of the gentleman, although its Ian
guage does not comprehend it, might secure to the
ntroducer of slaves the protection of his pro-
perty.
If the object of the Senator, however, is as he
states the language of it, think, does not neces-
sarily imply it. Irepeat what have before said,
that cannot vote to convert a Territory already
free into slave Territory. | am satisfied, for
one, to let the lea loci, as it exists, remain. Now,
let us see what will be the effect of this in that
/
| Three opinions prevail on that subject in the Sc
nate. According to my opinion, the laws of Mex
leo still prevail in that country, because Texas
never had possession of that country, never legis-
lated for that country, and her laws never stretch
ed over that country but on the contrary, the
country remained in the possession of Mexico UNI
ill., by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo it was
coded to the United States. In my opinion, there
fore, the local law which prevails in New Mexico
| -, toff ba Rio iran
as west of it's the law of Mexico, as pronounced
by the Dictator of Mexico, by the constitutional
authority of Mexico, and by the Legislative power
of Mexico. That is my own opinion. But, sir,
there are, | may say, two other opinions on this
subject. According to one of these opinions
which is maintained with so much ability by my
friend from Georgia (Mr Berrien) who sits near
me-even admitting that the law of Mexico did
extend to New Mexico this side of the Rio del
Norte, the constitution Of the United States, by its
own necessary operation abrogated that local law,
and invested the owners. of slaves with the power
of carrying their slaves into any portion of the
Territories acquired by us from Mexico. But
there is still another opinion.
| There are many Senators and members OF the
House of Representatives and large portion OF
the American people, who believe that all the ter
rtory this side of the Rio del Norte, from its mouth
to its source is Texas, and that the laws OF Tex
as consequently extend over it; and therefore that
the Texas laws comprehend New Mexico this side
of the Rio del Norte, aud that the ler toci OF the
territory east of the Rio del Norte is at this mo-
ment the law of Texas. If that opinion be cor
rect, there is nothing in the bill reported by the
committee to restrain the transportation OF slaves
from the slaveholding States into that portion OF
New Mexico which is on this side the Rio del
Norte. Hence there is nothing to prevent the
bringing before the Supreme Court OF the United
States the question of the right of the slavehold-
er to preserve possession of his properly, ana en-
Joy the benefits of it, if he should take 1t to the
| Territories. There will beno difficulty ABOUT the
matter if the bill as reported by the committee re-
mains unchanged. And if the Supreme Court
shall he of opinion either that the laws OF Tex
90 stretch over New Mexico this side of the Rio
Grande. or, as maintained by my friend from
Georgia. that the constitution OF the United States
abolished the Mexican laws by which slavery was
abrogated, in either case the owner OF slaves IN
New Mexico would have right to enjoy the pos
session of his property. But if on the contrary,
as | believe, the constitution did no such thing,
and Texas, not having actual possession, did not
extend her laws there, then it would follow that
the right to maintain and carry slaves there would
not prevail. l have endeavored, sir, to state the
effect of the provision in the bill as reported by the
committee, and the operation of the amendment of
the gentleman from Mississippi, as l understand
it.
Mr.. RusK. | desire, in this stage of the pro-
ceedngs on this b to say but a few words in
answer to a part of the argument of the Senator
from Kentucky. He seems to suppose that the
extension of the laws of Texas over every foot OF
the territory claimed by her, is necessary to con-
sttute title to the territory; that unless actual
possession and an actual extension of the law in
the exercise of jurisdiction absolutely over every
foot of the soil takes place, her title is lncom-
plee.
Mr. CLAY My friend will allow me to correct
him. said nothing about title. | spoke of the
law as it exists de acto or de jure. But law can
not be introduced without some action by legisla-
tive authority, if there be pre-exsting local law
If there be law de tacto, although the title may