The North-Carolinian. [volume] (Fayetteville [N.C.]) 1839-1861, 1850-03-16
RET ARKS OF Mr. CASS,
IN the IT, S. Senate, on the subject Of the
Hiimot Proriso, the dissolution of The
UuiOn &C.

Union, &c.
These remarks were made in consequence OF
some structures and censures by democrats upon
MIR Cass' conduct in regard to the Wilmot pro-
viso. We think this short and explicit speech
Is more important than the long and argume nta-
tive one delivered some time ago. Every body
will read and can perfectly understand this.
Mr. Cass said
If any one has misunderstood me before,
| conceive the fault was his own. Ifany
one misunderstood ne hereafter, the fault
shall be mine. l believe the WiImot Pro
viso to be unconstitutional. But before
l proceed toa full consideration of this
branch of the subject, beg leave to trou-
BILE the Senate with a brief review of nv
position. and Of the circumstances con-
nected with it. | have desired an oppor-
tunity of doing so for some time, as this
has been made matter of reproach, as in
deed, what is not in times like these
When the WiImot Proviso was first
proposed, have never concealed or deni-
ed that, had it been pushed to a vote,
should voted for it. There is no need for
any senator to resort to and retail cOnver-
sations in railroad cars to prove this.
had never examined the constitutional
power Of Congress; and when the subject
was proposed it did not excite that oppo-
sition from the South which we have since
Witnessed. nor lead rejecting men to
doubt whether such a provision could be
enforced without danger to the Union.
Southern men, l believe, had previously
voted for similar measure, aud it had
not become grave sectional question, in
volving the most fearful consequences. At
a subsequent session, convinced Of its
| I Il Il
however, without touching the const,tu-
tional point. Afterwards, circumstances
required me to examine the subject more
narrowly. The public mind in the South
| became highly excited. and the indications
were full of danger and difficulty. felt
| then, as do now, that the Union was the
| great object of every American, and that
there are few sacrifices which ought not
to be made to preserve it. Twas prepar-
| ed to go as far as any man ought to go to
attain that object. In examining the con-
stitution with reference to the whole mat
ter more narrowly than had ever done
before, l was startled by the conviction
that no autharity was granted in that in
! Territories and that, consequently, there
was no powe er to pass tn: Wilmot Prov-
so. Not satisfied with my own impress
sions, aud being unwilling to take such
ground without proper consideration. l
determined Immediately to converse with
some person fully cOnversant with the
history of the legislation and the judicial
decisions on the subject. In looking about
for that purpose, it immediately occurred
to me that ar eminent judge Of the Supreme
Court, Judge Mclean, Of Ohio, from
his position and associations, as we'll as
from his residence in the West. could give
me better information upon this subject
than any other person. Anticipating that
some discussion might soon arise that
would render this explanation proper,
and requested his permission thus public
" to refer to him, should deem it neces-
sary. This he cheerfuiy granted, and
l now make of his name, with his own
consent. Immediately repaired to him,
and stated my doubts, as we'll as the cir
cumstances which gave rise to them. |
need not repeat the conversation here. 1t
is enough to say that he confirmed my
impressions, and informed me that. in an
article published in the National Intelli-
gencer day or two previously, and which
had not seen, should find his views
fully set forth. That article has since
been published in other papers. and has
attracted good deal of attention, as it de-
served for it is powerfully written. 1
speak, sir. solely of the views which it
presents Of the power Of Congress to legis-
late for the Territories. The question of
slavery which it discusses do not refer
to. After reading this article, my doubts
ripened into convictions, and l took the
ground to which shall always adhere,
that the Wilmot Proviso is unconstitution-
al. And you have now, sir, the history
of my course upon this subject.
AS have said, laid down four princi-
pies, or opinions, if you please, in my
Nicholson letter. The FIRST, that the |
Wimot Proviso was unconstitutional |
second, that slavery, having been abolish
ed by the Mexican government, did not
exist in the territory then held by our arms; |
third, that slavery would not go there, as
we'll on account Of natural and geographic
cal obstacles as on account Of the feelings |
Of the people who were and might be there;
and, fourth, that organized communities
exercising the powers Of government,
whether State or territorial, had alone the
right Of fdetermining this question for them !
selves. am a great believer, Mr. Presi- |
dent, in the rights of man, whatever may |
be the nature Of the society where he lives,
and am not going to sacrifice this long
cherished opinion to any abstraction, met
aphysical or political. believe the peo-
pie Of the Territories have just the same
right to govern themselves as the people |
Of the State have. Nor do believe that !
a mans knowledge decreases as he recedes