The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-03-01
CITY OF WASHINGTON, FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH !, 1850.

pTOptTIy, 7
resentaon for persons held u involuntary sevtuden
other WORDS Tor slaves; thus constituting this relation
political relation connected with the federal govern
ment he knew therefore that Congress could not m
terere with il except In the mode and manner expressly
provided IN the constitution The only question left for
him, southern man, be anxious about. was. wheth
er As citizen Of Maryland, he could travel 70 California
with his slaves, there being law in California for or
against slavery for he did not believe that there was any
Mexican law the subject He did not believe that the
Mexcsn DEGREES were valid and il they were, as slavery
was political relation in lis connexon with the federal
government these DEGREES would not be Of force for Il
was the municipal law Of Mexico and not the. political
that would remain in force after the act Of acquisition;
But he felt anxious 10 know whether he could take his
negroes into county where law, either for Or against
slavery existed He knew that the adudicatons OF our
courts were both for and against this right He knew
slavery local institution But he knew also that
there were other decisions equally clear that declared
that slaves could go into these Territories He had GER
now trouble the committee. He knew that there
decisions which declared that held in boniage could
be carried by their masters into any territory or country
where domestic slavery not positively prohibited by
law; whilst on the other hand, there were authorities
requiring absolute and positive municipal law TO allow
the existence OF domestic servitude With full view Of
all these controverted points ne was Wiling to the
question 10 the courts. He had his opinion fixed and
as clear in his mind General CAss had his; and
he (Mr McL) took occasion to express his regret that
the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi [ Mr.
BRowN should have declared that there any ground
for misapprehensOn to the opinions o the candidate
Of the democratic party in the last presidential canvass
Neither in his letter nor in his speech did General CAss
present his own opinion these legal questions as
element OF the least Importance consideration He left
The question to the people, subordinate 10 the constitution
and the laws, to be controlled OF course, by judicial
bitranient Some oil might entertain entire confidence
that that arbitrament would be in favor OF the South
others might doubt it. And, in this eonRexon, he (Mr
Mel desired to call the attention OF the committee to
the position OF the gentleman from Georgia, MR.
TooMBs.1 Why did the gentleman vote last year against
the compromise bill Because he believed that the
"A AZ. 49,
Supreme Court of the United States would be adudcated
MT WELLBORN inte rposed and inquired il the gen
tleman knew that Mexican law prohibiting slavery ex-
listed in that country!
Mr. McLANE said he did not know whatGen Cass's
opinions were about Mexican law. He (Mr. Mel was
referring the point in his letter and speech which re-
lated TO the power Of the people OF the Territories
Mr. WELLBORN inquired whether the gentleman, in
his remarks about the Missouri compromise, included in
his denunciaon the amendment which he (Mr. W. had
oiIeredi
Mr. McLANE replied that as he recollected the gen,
tlenans amendment, il provided for positive recognl-
tion OF slavery south Of the ine and prohibition north
of IL, aud the Missouri line to which he had referred
as compromise which he could we'll understand south
ern men would prefer
Mr. WELLBORN expressed his satisfaction that the
gentleman from Maryland Mr. McLAsEl so considered
Mr. McLANE confined This was very different
matter from the Missouri compromise in its common
ceplaon, which he had already referred How could
the original spirit OF the compromise apply in this
The line then through slave territory and all south
Congress- therefore, could we'll be silent on the subject
south OF 80 deg. 80 min. Now, however, what life
would the Missouri compromise have when through
where positive law existed TO protect slavery? He re-
peaied that this Intervention south OF the line,
and anti slavery prohibition north Of it, Such an adiu-
dieaion Of the question ne desplsed and should always
ern democracy, and their policy OF noninterventon.
faithfully represented in the course OF the democratic
candidate for the presidency in the last This
he had called the policy OF the national democratic party
and this party he did not believe dissolved He did
not believe that IL had been waited away with the fumes
Of the dead carcass of the Bank Of the United States
fered to by his friend from North Carolina, lMr vENA.
BILE. lie believed II alike in the North and in the
South. He believed that the national democratic party
would live Il might go into minority, and he, for one,
would cheeriully bIde his time with until its hour of
progress and triumph returned II might faer. II night
run away from nonnierventon; might run away from
the ree-traie principles OF the tariff OF 1916; il might
even come here and oiie Ia make terms with the pr0ec
fioniss but sill he believed that the great heart OF the
democratic party would live Parties at the North and
the South might choose continue their sectional ogan
izatons and abstract power and force, for the time be-
ing from the national parry. All that he asked Of north.
ern men was 10 adjourn their individual opinions he
would adjourn his own He would not ask them, as he
had right TO do, 10 vote that he might take his slaves
IRON Maryland to California lie would leave that ques-
ton TO The courts All he asked was, that they would
not seek Legislative declaration 10 deny the right He
asked them to stand by the doctrine OF intervention
let the decide the question: without regard 10
the consideration whether General CAss, or any other
statesman IN the democratic party, OF the opn
ION or the other, provided they would all aclulesce IN
this submission OF the TO the judicial arbtranent
ferred TO.
II he right in his position that slavery, though
mpcal regulation within the States, polcal reg
uiaon 50 far as the federal government concerned
then he would like To know whether the people OF the
territory, belonging TO the government would not also
have TO the courts 10 ascertain whether they had the
right 10 pass such law. He might think they had or
bad not the right TO pass such law Gen. Cass might
think they hal or had not northern democrats might
think they had or had not that rght he Mr. McLANE)
wished them to answer this question. II they will
ing TO let this question alone-to let rest with the peo
pie OF that country subordinate the consttuton-iha
constitution which protected the rights OF the States and
the rights OF the peopewhich provided that "the pow
not delegated the United States BY the constitutions
nor prohibited by 10 the States, reserved 10 the
States respectively, the peopehe would meet them
on tina, ground II they OF the Souih had not the right
der the constitution, take their slaves into the Terrific
res, he did not want to take them there. He wished
not TO be mistaken he had been two years ago. when he
had alke about the outrage, as he considered IL
would constitute outrage TO force slavery un
as American citizens He was not to be confronted with
the declaration that slavery was national disgrace,
moral wrong He did not believe the Union could exist
when the great body OF the northern representatives
here proclaiming that il was national disgrace and
moral wrong. and acting upon this idea BY bringing the
before him the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania
Mr. McLANAHAN,l who, though he thought Il national
disgrace, moral wrong took his stand upon the doctrine
Of non.intervention. The gentleman from Illinois Mr.
BMERl had spoken OF planting the flag OF this Union
upon the capped hills OF California to float there
foever II must be the flag OF this Union, as the flag OF
national hoaor not as covering the relation Of political