The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-07-30

balisss that his. State would base -eixsn him her
vote under such circumstances, Withdrawipgh his
amendment. tyT asg AZ
Mr.. McWILLIE renewed il and alfer address
ing the Committee, withdrew the amendment.
Mr.. swEETzER renewed il. and argued for
five minutes TO show that the last previous speaker
was wrong in attribuiiDg to the North determi-
nation not to abide the decision Of the courts upon
the question whether slavery could or could not
go into California and New Mexico, without posi-
tive enactment Of Congress. ~ ~
Mr.. S. then withdrawing the amendment,
1t was renewed by Mr.. CLEVELAND, and it
was rejected-yeas AZ, nays 90.
Mr.. ORR moved that the Committee do now
rise--not agreed to. 1900 l
Mr.. INGE next moved the amendment eff Mr..
Marshall, changed only by substituting the
word '.protect" for permit" (That is to make
it affirm that Congress would protect rather
than permit the existence Of slavery north Of $50
80 in the said territory
Mr.. T. taking the floor said:
Mr. WOODWARD had but two views to
present. We were told that if the question,
whether rights in slave property in the territories
be recognized by the Constitution, should be de-
ermined by the courts either for or against those
rights, good faith and respect for the decisions of
the courts, would bind the North to abstain from
interfering afterwards. Now, SIR, this is delu-
sive The courts might decide that, in the abb
sence of prohibiting legislation, these rights
were recognized by the Constitution, and,
yet, at the same time, decide that Congress
could abolish slavery in these territories. And
if Congress have such power, the exercise of it
when an occasion arose, would not be bad faith
towards the court, or any disrespect to its judg-
ment as to what was the true construction of
the Constitution. BY permitting this question,
therefore, to 60 to the courts, the North came
under no obligations to let us alone hereafter,
unless Congress so provide expressly. We
know, indeed, of a certainty, that the federal
court would decide in favor of the power Of
Congress to abolish slavery in the territories,
surprising it existed there; and decision that it
did exist there, could not destroy this power in
Congress. believe the court has been in error,
but it will be governed by its own decisions,
and not by my opinions
If the idea that slavery is recognized by the
Constitution in the territories, be inconsistent
with the idea, that Congress can abolish it, then
it is mockcry to refer the question to the courts
for the history of federal Jurisprudence shows
that the court would decide in favor Of such
power in Congress.
Now as to non-intervention. The gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. SwEETzER) says that this has
been the doctrine Of the great Democratic party
North. No such thing, sir. They have ever
voted to prohibit slavery north of $500. Since
this doctrine of non-intervention was proposed
BY them, they have, on many occasions, relative
to Oregon aud other territories, voted to pro-
hibit slavery. Whenever the Missouri Com
promise was to be executed in their favor, north
of 1880, Intervention has, invariably, been their
doctrine; it was only when that compromise
was to be carried out south Of $500 that nom
Intervention became the doctrine. One doc
trine for the North, and another for the South.
NOn-interyention was never dreamed of until
the expedient Of using Mexican laws against
the South was agreed upon. The doctrine was
then invented in order to save their Mexican
laws from being enforced with, and to permit
them to intervene against Southern eniigrants
Mr.. CARTIER inquired whether the doe
trine of non-intervention did not originate in
the South!
Mr.. WOODWARD. The ,oord non-inter-
vention originated with the South, but that
spurious and feeble construction which has
been put upon it had no such origin. What
Mr.. Calhoun meant, was that Congress should
not interfere with the constitutional question Of
the existence of slavery in the territories of the
Union, and not that Congress should be abb
solved from its obligation to legislate for the
protection of any rights existing under the Con-
stitution. As to myself repudiated the word
from the first, and attempted to enforce the
false doctrines which, toresaw, would be built
upon il.
Mr.. T. having Withdrawn his amendment,
Mr. WOODWARD renewed it and said
Mr.. INGE said: offer as an amendment to
the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky,
just rejected by the committee, with single al
teration, to wit I: the substitution of the word
protecting for permitting for the purpose of
avowing a distinction; for which have always
In my opinion the Constitution
carries slavery to the Territories, whether the
Mexican laws prohibited it anterior to their ac-
QUESTION or not. Where such laws existed they
were abrogated by the Constitution. The North
entertain different opinion, which has from the
beginning of this controversy been openly pro-
This Of itself is obstruction to the
practical enjoyment of our rights, which ought
to be obviated.
While do not ask Congress to permit slavery,
do insist that it is bound by legislation to Sc
cure its practical enjoyment in that portion of
the territory which may be allotted to the South
by partition; and therefore | will accept no
adjustment which does not in effect remove all
these Instructions which our adversaries say,
exist. / do not ask the creation of a right by
but the protection of constitutional
right pre-existing. This to be adequate must
be plain and explicit--free from double mean
ing and not tainted with that Jesuitical horror
of slavery, which has long marked the co urse of
the North. No permission IS asked to emigrate to
the territories, but unequivocal protection to our
property after we get there.
The question on the amendment Of Mr.. INcE
being next put-no quorum voted ~ yeas a.,
noes SO.
The roll being then called, quorum voted. The
facts having been reported to the Speaker, the
House again resolved itself into Committee.
Mr.. JOHNSON, of Arkansas, moved to adj
journ-not agreed to-yeas As, noes 80.
The question then REQUIRED on the amendment
Of Mr.. INcE, it was again put, when no quorum
voted-yeas 81, noes 80.
The Clerk proceeded to call the roll for quo