The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-06-06
Mr.. WEBSTER, AND THE JURISDICTION OF
THE UNITED STATES.

NT. w tDSltT, III his Jeu1dFkS III ueIeuCe Oh Lne
action of the Administration in relation to the
Cuban expedition, said-"I suppose that nobody
doubts now that the jurisdiction of the United
States is in and over protecting for the benefit of
the United States, and protecting for the benefit
Of other countries, all that are under the flag of
the United States, whether that flag floats upon
the sea, or even in the harbor of foreign port
believe that sometime ago an honorable Senator
from Ohio doubted that, and | believe that an
honorable Senator from New York quoted the
sentiment, and said that nobody believed it,
The Senators referred to are Messrs Chase
and Seward to whom Mr.. Webster ascribes the
utterance Of a very crude opinion. Had he been
in his place when MIR. Chase delivered his views
or had he troubled himself to read speech from
which even be might have derived some inatruc-
ton, he would have understood that the position
called in question was one totally different from
that stated in the foregoing extract. The follow
ing quotation from the speech will show what doc
trine it was that Mr.. Chase not only doubted but
repudiated.
He is speaking of the lea loci of the Terrific
res, prohibiting slavery, which he believes is in
force, and to the operation of which he would be
willing to trust, did the National and Territorial
Governments fully entertain this view, and were
it not opposed generally by the statesmen and
jurists of the South
"But,D he continues, "we have no such ad-
ministration. On the contrary, we know that
distinguished gentlemen, who are among its most
prominent supporters, assert and insist that I'M
der the Constitution and in virtue of its provi-
sion, the Government of the United States is as
much bound to protect and maintain, within Ma
tional Territories, every slavehoding emigrant
in the full possession CONTROL and disposal of his
slaves, as it is to protect and maintain any other
emigrant in the possession control, and disposal
of any species of property whatever. In this po-
sition leading gentlemen on the other side Of the
Chamber agree with them. In other words, they
insist that, by the operation of the Constitution
ITSELF slavery became lawful in the Territories
from the date Of the acquisition. There is
pretty general concurrence among Senators from
the slave States Of both political parties in this
position. | should be glad to be assured that
there are no Senators from the free States who
concur in 1t. | regret that the Senator from
Massachusetts, whom am sorry not to see in his
seat to-day, did not see it. when be addressed the
Senate lately to state his views upon this subject
IL ApCoiiSCt dIlkut, tuSJ ulStIHkulSHcu OcuHtOF,
when occupying another high position in the
Government, in diplomatic despatch of great
ability, maintained the doctrine that, under the
Constitution of the United States, men might be
held Gs property in American vessels upon the
high seas, beyond the limits Of any State, and
this upon the ground that such vessels were TO be
regarded in the same light as National Territory.
If the honorable member does in fact hold this
opinion, do not see that he differs widely, or at
all, a. to this matter, from the Senator from
Georgia, [Mr. Berrien, or the Senator from Ala
hama, Mr.. King | need not say that WHOLLY
dissent from it."
Mr.. Chase, it seems denied, not that the juris-
diction of the United States extends in and over
all vessels having the flag Of the Union, but that
Slaves, carried from any of the States within this
Jurisdiction, were recognised and protected by
it, as slaves or property.
Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Berrien, and other eminent
jursts of the South have contended that slave
is as much property as bale Of cotton-that the
former is no more local in his character than the
latter-that, within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States, their property relations are
the same, and that the Government is bound to
extend to both equal protection. Mr.. Webster,
in q his celebrated letter to Lord Ashburtonn as
sumed precisely this position, and IL was for this
affirmation Of the central doctrine Of the Slave
holders, that he received the warm consideration
Of John C.. Calhoun.
Now, it is clear, that the jurisdiction of the
United States In and over the Territories is Just
as supreme and exclusive, as it is in and over
vessels belonging to the Union. And, if the doc
trine in relation to Slavery on the high seas, un-
der the American flag, maintained by Messrs.
Webster and Calhoun, be true it is true also, in
violation to Slavery in the Territories, under the
American flag If the Government owes equal
protection to slave and a bale Of cotton, consid-
cred as property, in vessel of the United States
it owes equal protection to a slave and bale of
cotton, considered as property, in Territory Of
the United States.
II may be said that in the case Of the Terrific
ries acquired from Mexico, the analogy fails, be-
cause there is lex loci prohibiting the holding
OF human beings as property, If Mr. Web
ster believes this, why does he not say so Why,
since he has abandoned the Wilmot Proviso, does
he not give the sanction Of his authority to the
doctrine that the Mexican Law prohibiting sla-
very In New Mexico and Utah ID still in force
so that slave ceases to be property the moment
he passes within their boundaries7 Now, II ]