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

Mr. DAWSON. Will the senator permit me TO asl
oM ~ II the Sss
Mr. WALKER. | shall have occasion to reply To- that
inquiry in the course OF my arguments but have not YET
suppose gentlemen will concede that all the political
laws we have are TO be found in the constitution and in
those acts of Congress which intended 10 carry ou
ls provisions Whether the authority Of the supreme
Court will be considered good ON this subject OF slavery
or not will not undertake to say; but certain II Is that
whatever the writer's upon the law Of nations may have
armed N reference 70 this question: the Supreme Court
has decided IT. and decided it against these gentlemen who
claim the right to take their slaves TO California The
first case to which shall refer is that Of the United States
U.s. Percheman, in the 7ih volume Of Psers's Reports
II is claimed by gentlemen here that by virtue OF the
acquisition OF the territory the laws ab0shing prohb
ng slavery were abrogated. The Supreme Court says
Opp. SO, SD in the case before me:
ltmay not be unworthy Of remark that is very unusual
sren an cases Of conqxe for the do than
g dspacs ne sovereign and sssuns dominion ever ihs
which q acknowledged and sll 6y he whole soIssea
sensa xe's spsa psaSsS isu' 7s
Ysols change lsy asgtase ihsr rsatio q Their ancis~
their rights property. remain ndisinrb fts be the
modern rule, even in Of eonqesf who dosbt
ri@y III ayf'a0' = - 'a's Z - a"''a'N ee''''@ M
In this case sir. though the court decided the general
principles, the case itself was one which related 70
grant from the governor of Forda under authority from
the King of Spain II contended, sir, precisely it
is contended here, that when Florida acquired this
country, the laws and grants then existing in Florida
were abrogated. The Supreme Court says No. the pso
pe only change their allegiance the relation bstf0een
fhem and TIE soveregn IS dissotved while the rights OF
property, and their relations to each Other remain as be-
fore. s.s 8s.lsa sts.s sl N ss ssfs 4ss 88ss4gg N
But will now refer to decision that does not
concern the rights of property but which relates to the
Florida abrogated BY the cesson, would not the
salvage laws be abTogaied, as well as other laws Can
gentlemen draw the distinciions Not at all sir II gen.
fha thai.
ton of slavery Recognised by the constitution, they
become part OF the political law Of the land which ab
rogaes the local law Of the Territory when annexed,
why is not commercial law part OF the politi-
cal law for certainly the institution Of commerceis
not only recognized but its whole regulation 10 embraced
erusivy By the constitution Hthey claim that the anti
slavery laws of Mexico become abrogated the acQui
siton in California and New Mexico, why not claim
that the commercial law of salvage becomes abrogated
alsos Now. hereis decision which declares that the
law relating TO salvage remained in force after Florida
was annexed to this country The court says
The usage Of the world l.. IL nation be not entirely
subdusd % consider the holding Of conquered territory
military occupation, until its fate shall be deternn-
ed the treaty peace it be ceded by the treaty, the
confirmed and the ceded territory becomes
stipulated IN the treaty Of cesson q on such ss ts new
shall 10 On snsh an'sr ~ % q has
each other undergo any change Their relations wth their
.s s s sa Ia. sI
territory The act which transfers their country
sssh | ss s wss @es q II aas s
changed although that which regulates the ~terosrse ama
s .sl e s y r ss,a sss
O. Reps, page osz) 8Nf 8a teT lsaf ef Bf
Again, sgf e
has already been stated that all the laws which were
In force in Florida, wh province Of Spaishose except
ed which where political in their character, hc cosesd
s . s M re se zee S.a as e s 'S .
No laws could then have been in force but those enacted
the Spanish gopsrrmsnt, - Same eaS, paC Sa4)
This sir goes TO the full extent of the doctrine for
which contend II declares what the political law OF
this country swhst the political law OF svsry country
is; that il regulates the relations between the subject
czens and that all other laws remain in force in the
conquered ceded country until repealed, altered, or
amended by hs county n making M the ssqusion
to remind him that the law 10 which he refers con-
tnued in force by the act Of Congress creating teito
rial government for Florida refer 10 the act Of 1922
from Georgia says, il he only that the act OF 1922
declared the laws of Spain be in force But il he means
to say that the act enacted them into force do controver
Mr. BERRIEN. The court says that the laws in force
there were the laws Of Spain. M
Mr. WALKER. Just so.
in force there by The act OF Congress, which organized
a territorial Or goyernment-the ys ACT Of ls22.
BERRES MAtkE W TAf ss ..sss allow
to read from the act OF 1922
Mr.. WALKER. Certainly.
Mr. BERRIEN. The provision is this:
lhat inc laws W T0fcf IN sad Territory nj the time OF
the passage OF this act and which inconsistent with
the provisions thereof shall continue force until
amended. repealed, by legislation Of Congress-" E
MIR WALKER. Suppose that be so, sir then
Mr. BERRIEN Then the continuance OF the Spanish
laws which were force in Florida at the date OF that
act provided for by the act Now, want say one
word more and that is, il the Spanish laws would have
continued in force without such provision by act OF Con-
gress recognising them. why were they specially re-
validity TO the Spanish awsif they continued IN force
and would have continued in force without that act
why were those laws deliberately re-snaefed7
Mr. WALKER. They were not re.enacied. The act
was merely declaatory act in reference 10 laws that
were in force, and would have remained in force without
it, The act acknowledges them TO be in force and not
have been abrogated by the cession OF Florida.
Mr. BERRIEN. II they would have continued in
force without it. where the necessity for its passage
that poioo laws lor the senator only contends
that such abrogaed No, sir il declares that the
laws then force should continue in force II does not
put any in force merely admits that they force
and that is the very position that take And not only
the judicial decisions have said So but the senator him
self has SAID so, he adopts the language Of thai act
Mr.. BERRlEN. My proposition, il the senator will
allow me, is II these laws would have been in force
without the provisions Of that act where the necessity
for passing Il
Mr. WALKER. Ihave answered that already abou,
dozen times ID declares the truth Of my position. and
admits that the laws Of Spain force and declares
simply that. being IN foiee, they should continue 30 u
they in force, the act admits, pray When would
they have ceased 10 be in force without the act Annex
alton had already taken place is evidence IN avof o
my and not OF the senator's poson. tell him, again.
the act was declaraory and supererogatory
Bat, sir, will now quote case decided in slave