The Woodville Republican. [volume] (Woodville, Miss.) 1847-1853, 1850-10-22
From tbe Mobile Register.
JUDGE BERRIEN'S OPINION
on THE
COMPROMISE EILL--NON-INTERyEv 2C.

Win the hope that The wings in our city
and state will respect the opinions of one of
the most distinguished of their party. I -,p,;
you Tor publication, the following extracts
rom letter Written by Judge Berricn. in
reply 10 a communications from certain ciri-
Hehs OF Georgia asking his opinions ON tne
questions OF the late compromise bills. and
lhe doctrine OF non-intervention.
l. The first question pTopounded to Judge
bernen was lhiS-'lf the bill reported by
the committee of thirteen, become law
co~<a Slarery be cCteaaca to the territories
acquired from Mexico ?" In reply to this
question he says
"If the compromise bill should pass,
slavery will be excluded from California, by
the provision of her constitution to ichich
Cdty0TRia ar{lth hare giceH raliaity: as to
Mexico and Utah, it will depend upon the
question whether the Mexican laws are in
force, | hold that they are not, They are
superseded by our own as soon as Territo-
rial Government is organized; but Others
entertain, or profess to entertain, different
opinion, and tie doubt htHs erU,ccd 1oycecai
@drc-hoide/S from carrying their py0pc1ty
! there TO eRc0HHtcr La1c SuitS. Congress-
ought, therefore, to insert in any act which
they pass on this subject clause, stating
that the laws of Mexico are not in force in
those territories. We have hitherto sought
to Obtain this III vain--a decaratory cause"
IN the opinion of Judge Berrien slavery is
MS e.lectually excluded from all the terrific
rles acquired from Mexico, as it could have
been by the passage of the Wimot proviso.
by the action of Congress, California is ad.
mltted with constitution prohibiting slave.
ry. This question is settled as to that State.
By the refusal of Congress to pass an act
repeating the Mexican law supposad bv
many to be in force in New Mexico and
/ Misunderstanding slavery)-the question as
10 these territories, may be considered as
settled also. For, as Judge Berrien saws
the doubt that exists in relation to the va
lidty of the Mexican law, "wil prevent
shareholders from carrying their property
there to encounter law suits"
2. The second question presented to
Judge Berrlen was as follows "Win not
the claim that Congress has the right, and it
is its duty to legislate, to protect slavery in
the territories, yield by Implication the 1,0ic-
or TO fcglstate against this" In answer
to this question Judge Berrien says:
81 could answer this question generally in
the negative. Congress has authority, in
various cases, to pass laws in atIirmance and
for the protection Of existing rights, while
1t has no power to annul them Freedom
OF the.press, trial by jury, the right to cx-
empt from unreasonable seizures and search
es, with others, are constitutional rights
Congress may pass laws to facilitate the en-
Joyment of these rights, while they have no
authority to annnl or abridge them. So. if
the right to hold slaves is a constitutional
right, the right to move any distractions TO
It's enjoyment in the common territories of
1 the Union would not draw attcrit the power
to prevent Its enjoyment there. In word,
I Congress may tegjSiate FIR tie Ey0tecil0n
/ Of a right g~ar0aieed bY the claStithti0a,
but they can110t kegisiatc 10 dcay0y it,"
In the articles that | addressed some time
since to the consideration OF your readers
| endeavored to establish and illustrate this
/ position. Congress has The right to lcris-
late for the protection and security of slave
ry-becanse it is recognized by the consti-
] tutlon,-but it has no constitutional author
ity to restrict or deStlOy it. In this opinion
| am glad that | am sustained, by such high
authority as Judge Berrien.
3. The third and last question presented
to Judge Berriens consideration was the
iolloWing-"lf the constitution coufcrs qhe
right OF slavery to enter and occupy the ter
ritories of the United States will the de-
mand upon Congress to recognize that right
i'll any and every territorial BILL be incouss-
tent with the doctrine of non-intcrvcntion ?"
The answer of Judge Berrien, to this i'm
portant question, should be read attentiveIy
by all who deny that Congress has violated
the doctrine of fn2a-lHtcrUe11tiOa, by the pas
sage of the late compromise bill lie says:
"The doctrine of non-intervention is not
applicable to the present state of things.
Claytons compromise bin proposed to es-
tablish Territorial Governments for all the
territory acquired from Mexico. The effect
OF it would have been to have opened the
whole to the owners of slaves, subject TO
the decision of the Supreme Court 1t was
to such case only that non-intervention
could apply. But if Mr.. Clay's compromise
bill should pass, Congress would intervene
lby that very act, to prohibit slavery, in the
most important and valuable part Of the
common terfitory--for all agree that the
people who CHANGED to be in California, had
no right to declare this prohibition and that
their act is entirely null aud void until Con
gress shall give it life and validity. II IS
the same thing as If Congress hal I'M
poSed the provtso themSeires. If.Californa
is admitted with her present Constitution
Congress sotkI haze ulterUe,,ed against the
South, and cannot, therefore, with any show
of justice, plead non-intervention as an ex-
cuse for Withholding from the South, any
act which may be necessary to protect her
in the enjoyment Of her constitutional
E rirbfa "