The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-03-14

The senator from Mississippi remarks IN regard io th
act, that It was never carried out so lar as nave
the law Vim rhich IL Was 10 go INFO effect was neye
made, nor in any manner compensation rendered.
quote the exact language OF the senator from Mis-
would seem 10 me that il i likely be is as lar mistaken
in this respect as he certainly was TO some extent n hs
other. n5
80 far as have been able TO learn from those who
then there and who have been there snce and who were
connected with the government, this apprasement wa'
Mr.. WALKER Nor does the law depend upon Il
The effect OF law at once aboishing slavery does moi
depend upon the contingency OF the appraisement, q
payment q sompsasasIoa ~ a a. indefinite s, IA. a.
for the sale Of horse would havea right % Teake the
horse II payment not made. The act aboshes s!a
very unqaaGedy. and that aboioa is not made to de-
pend the payment or appraisement The owners were
10 be paid tcaea Il cas IN ae poUer Of me goysrnmsnt q
pay em but slavery was not the less unquaIihedy de-
BEsRGN hnis
will ask him how could provision have been carried
out for the appraisemen OF the personal qualities Of the
slaves. i they were liberated BY the mere operation q
Mr. WALKER In the same manner as the personal
qualities OF slave who was shot could be ascertaned
in court Of justice investigating case under the Law
of bailment tfespass The slave might be an eternity
and yet there might be witnesses who knew his qualities,
and could testify regard TO them presume there is
scarcely slave whose personal qualities are not known
The senator from Georgia [Mr BERRIEs] has hereto
fore asked, if slavery abolished BY the decree OF
Guerero what slavery there was lett to be abolished BY
the Mexican Congressl answer, that my opinion rs
that the decree swept slavery from the SOIL except in
Texas and that there was none existing But that there
might be no doubt as to the validity OF the Decree and to
its suspension, there very good reason why
the law passed There good reason Tor it, II
Mexico intended that her soil should not be trodden BY
the sy slave S l, . y. u, ,,,.. /, Il. =, J, ~,
gress of 1887 ; and attention being bestowed upon
these laws, will be seen that they are as etiectually
prohibory Of slavery il the term prohibited had been
used The term used regard to the slave trade, and
the purpo and effect Of the act OF Congress Of 1887 Of
prohibition. declares that slavery Is abolished with
out any exception in the whole republic Now, sir,
thing which is abolshed-a right which is destroyed
longer exists. Can any right which Is abolished be
exercised against the act of abolition Is It not
prohibton But will not stop here. ! will come
down step further; and that brings US to the
constitution TO which attention was directed the other
day. by the senator from Missouri, Mr.. BESToN.l II
declares as follows 3
"That i in the territory Of the nation, and
any introduced shall be considered Free and shall DO under
the protection of the laws"
Is any stronger prohibition than this desired Can
slavery exist there Is it not efecuay destroyed Is
it not efectnaly prohibited ii no one Is slave through
out the Mexican territory, and every which shall be
introduced TO be free and be under the protection Of
Mr.. BUTLER Suppose that this territory was con-
quered entirely bya nation Of Shareholders could they
not whatever might be the laws OF the territory carry
MIR. WALKER will endeavor to answer the gentle
man. and inform him that the judiciary has decided that
ha. % decided es s ns
main in force on this very point will refer him to no
freeStae authority, but TO that Of the Supreme Court Of
Inc United States and 70 repeated ove5 and Gve,
Walkers Mississippi REPORTS page 81 which shall pres
emily quote. sj8 Faf ~
the constitution OF Mexico OF ls43. II anything can be
prohbtory OF slavery, is that which declares that the
moment the foot of the slave touches the SOIL he is free
Is there any language upon which we can rest more &C.
curcy than that OF the law that the slave is free
the moment his foot touches the soil OF England And
will be contended that slave taken there continues
slave presume not i will not do to consult the
common-law writers Of England on this subject The
contradiction is given too positively, and the proof too
strongly, to be controveredl 4s 1l.s.
Ia 1874 the Mexican constitution was again amended
and according TO Waddy Thompson, southern geAtle
man, and late minister TO Mexico, in work written
by him. entitled "Recollectons of Mexico" this cons
tuition declares, that SLAVERY is FOREVER PRoHIBr
II four words can be found which could more efectu.
ally put out OF existence slavery or the right 10 hold
slaves. should like to have them pointed out to me
In regard to time, find term which expresses
more than forever stronger for the destruction
OF right than prohibited ra sg.a
Here is chain OF legislation and governmental action
the subject OF slavery, from period oil one year and
eleven months after the declaration OF Mexican independ
ence down TO the year 1874; and you will find all her
acs wherever touching the subject OF slavery, assuming
free States which has abolished slavery, and show
the law which in the strength OF terms destroys
slavery II is not in Copnecticut that law exists
strong-and she is much adverse 10 slavery as any
other State believe there free State, except in
those formed out OF the Northwest Territory, where the
prohibition is so strong against slavery as in Mexico
Indeed the language OF the ordinance of 1857 itself is
not so strong. What does that decarei That ''here
shall be neither slavery involuntary servitude, e1ep
for the punishment of crime but il declares that fug
tive slaves shall be surrendered There proviso OF the
kind in the Mexican law The language is, that slavery
abolished without exception, the whole republic The
constitution OF S43 is that slavery shall exist in the
republic and that slaves brought there shall be free from
the simple fact OF treading the Mexican soil The
stituton Of 1914 is that "slavery oreUer prohIbited
Compare that language with the ordinance OF i7S7 and
Of Mexico. tat ns sal4s
Having given those laws, now come to the question,
and the great question which is here conroverted, TO
wit: the effect oil those laws upon this country, or
rather upon persons going from this country the Ter
ritories acquired from Mexico
will here lay down proposition OF law. hold IL 10
be the law, both in this country and in England, that
where country acquired by conquest cession has
laws OF It's own, such laws continue and remain in full
force until altered repealed BY the supreme power OF
the country making the acquisition, except such laws
only against the law OF God incompatible with
the constitution political law o the acquiring country
Now, il this principle OF law be conlroverted, | shall
feel Obliged indeed for The authorities against IT, have
looked in vain for any, and do not believe that any
exist u my position be correct u settles the question,
unless Il can be shown that the slavery laws OF States
are part OF the political law of this goperament
Mr. BERRlEN. Lest the senator, by stating this
proposition, should infer that the silence OF the Senate
was acquiescence in il, will make remark. The
proposition ls, the laws OF country which conquered