The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-03-29
CITY OF WASHINGTON, FRIDAY MORNING MARCH %, 1850

laws Of nature and the constitution II she does subm
70 principles which exclude her permanently from ou
between Ireland and England the type OF those which
States.
Mr.. President, this right OF the States to participate
equally N althe advantages pecuniary. social. and po
litica OF the common territory of the Union seems Il
me 70 be SO obvious and just that refrain from
wonder az Its ever having been disputed Suppose we
had gone into that Mexican as two confederacies
as northern and southern, and, allies in that war
mad made these conquess: could any man have dreamed
Of dispung the right OF those two confederacies to d.
vision OF that territory! Could the North have said then
to the South We cannot allow you to take any part be-
cause you would carry your Institutions there which are
dreamed OF abandoning its share, either promote
good feeling or for any other consideration that oi
actual force! And why would the South have insisted
For the advantage OF coonizing it. for the preservation
OF the balance OF power between the North and the South
Are not these objects more important to us. If pos
sible within the confederacy than they would be with
out II AS two confederacies, we should feel your
power only in cases Of actual collision which might be
rare but within the Union, we feel il every day in the
the concerns OF life. In the there might be
possibility Of our being conquered BY the sword in the
e sa0d0sd and
VI all the instruments OF oppression, commend me for
the choicest not e the sword but the statute Ire
enough; but her condition since is marvel and an Of
fence in the eyes of civilized Are we TO be told,
then Mr. President that the right Of the South TO share
been two confederaces, and that il is lost because
confederaes and brethren! Is this the price which we
pay for the Unionl Are be assured that we
or Of growing in social and political power except as
separate confederacy' Could you offer direct in
ducenlent to the growth Of spirit Of disunon than BY
such course as this When You have thus offered the
most powerful temptation within your reach to the South
to desire separation, how can you complain if the
dgctlon should prove poweriui' You cannot complain
selves have sown.
Mr.. President, with what feelings must the southern
soldier contemplate this exclusion Of his native State
from share in the fruit Of those victories which he had
contributed to win! The North and the South man,
side BY side, entered the imminent deadly breach sle
side many Of them repose in common grave their la
bors, their perls. their triumphs common: it
too much to have expected that the enjoyment Of what
won should also be commoni And yet the southern
man finds, upon his return, that he was not much
enabling the United States to conquer Mexico
ing the conquest of the South BY Che North. and con-
quest not the less absolute because It to be effected
through the forms Of legislation When he went into
that war; there was political equilibrium between the
North and the South n at least one branch Of the GOV
very conquests which he has contributed to make. the
North is to be placed permanently and greatly in the
tendency. With what feelings viii he contemplate his
trophies when he remembers with what 10
his native State they have been won He will regard
them not with emotions Of prde but Of and OF
shame The leaf OF the coveted bay whose deadly thirst
he opened the Of life to supply, will parch and
wither beneath the burning tear Of shame, when he
comes TO behold il as an emblem not Of honor, but Of
disgrace TO the State which bore him.
But, Mr. President there is yet another point of view
in which have TO discuss the question as to our right
TO carry property Of every description to the com
territory oil the Union, and to settle with 1t under
the protection Of the government And whatever may be
the idea 10 the constituencies OF the general govern
men or the theory as to the principle upon which il
constructed, the train of reasoning which shall
argued BY Mr. Webster that the main object Of The
sttution to provide for uniform regulations OF trade
hpf w States and fOrpIp He aaId
the resolutions Of Virginia in 1885, switch were the
immediate cause OF the convention" named no other
This view sustained by Judge johnson in the opin
ion which he delivered in the twas also argued,
by another lawyer the case, that the right OF State
to trade with another was natural right existing under
the law OF nations confirmation OF which he quoted
Vatte he might have done Grous and other respect
able authorities the subject. The court sustained
this view. Judge Marshall says that 'ihe constitution
found II existing right and gave Congress the right to
regulate it"-(sih Wheeler, p 2l1.) And Judge john
says (bd, p 22S,) "were every law the subject
Of commerce repealed Tomorrow all commerce would be
lawful and in practice merchants never inquire what
permitted, but what is forbidden commerce" This,
lake IT, the undoubted rule OF national law, and Judge
Johnson only affirmed what all respectable authorities
upon this subject will sustain.
Ii also decided in this that TO protect this right
OF the States 10 trade with each other the power was
and foreign nations" exclusive power. The State
governments therefore, could not interfere with pro-
hib this trade, except in the necessary exercise OF their
power police and inspection laws which
exception recognised in the decision According 10 the
spirit OF this the constitution designed to give all
the States equal rights in trade with each other and with
foreign nations The power OF regulating, therefore,
given to Congress TO procure uniformity in CONNER
ca laws and 10 be exercised, not 10 discriminate
against any, the property OF any, but to equal
rights TO commerce to all. In the OF Groves
and Slaughter, it well argued by Mr.. CLAY, who
was OF counsel, that this power TO regulate excluded
the idea Of right 10 destroy trade. In that case the
decided that Congress could not prohibit the slave
trade between the States This in some degree an
obie decision but il has been received BY public opin
ion as the sentiment Of the and the law of the land
Such, presume, will always be its decision. II Con.
gress then, cannot prohibit the slave trade between the
Staes il prohibit that trade either by land or
II cannot prevent slaves from being carried on
shipboard over the high from Norfolk TO New Or
leans nor H. il the trade be lawful and beyond the
reach OF IFS prohibition, prevent sale shipboard OF
that species OF property nor, II rights are thus trans
erred, can refuse to protect those rights, and afford
and remedies for trying them II this be so, how
prohibit the sale OF slaves, and avoid the conse
quent obligations to protect their rights in the Terrific
es Its jurisdiction is not more paramount in one case
case than the other But may be sad the free States
may prohibit the sale Of slaves within their borders,
the extent OF the necessity for doing to exclude the in
sution OF slavery from being fastened upon themselves
so may Congress do the same within the Territories.
But il be recollected that their right 10 do has
been decided to exist under the police power resident IN
State governments This police power implies will and
existence separate from the other States OF the con-
federacy All these grow out OF supposed con-
ci OF interest between this and the other States as
separate society But in the Territories there IS no sepa-
rate WILL separate socety will to be felt in mat
tes Of law but that Of the common government q a the