The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-03-10

meni OF such an opinion this The constitution doe
stiuton! tits body of laws, rules, mandates eslab
shed BY the United States for the United States Ii al
rects how these States or their agents shall do what
permitted 10 be done by them at all IL is addressed
persons, not Places and wherever there persons as
Stunning 10 act at all under its authority there does th
constitution apply to them, and direct command, an,
control hem 49, Them almost solecsm to say tina
the constitution does does not ertend 10 Territory
Gentlemen vaguely speak of il as il il was somethinI
tangible, material maeable which, like goldle nigh
be hammered out and made to spread itself from place
place has no parts no physical extension, and doe
not occupy space. is the supreme and sovereign lcH
acts upon all other wills subject to its control II op
crates upon intellectual agencies and wherever there
such agencies deriving their authority from the constu
ton, or IRON those whom the constitution called into be
agmao matter aa whether N the Territories Or in th'
obedience. Let them 60 where they may--to Europe
ASIA Africa on land or the seashis sovereign will fol
lows them, directs them, controls them. T Hls
Sr; @ not only ths SoasptIpn hn every eenstitrtona
actof Congress- applies 10 the Territories Even law
directing The building Of house in the city Of Washing
ton extends not only 70 the District Of Columbia but ID
al the States, and 10 all the Territories OF the United
States Let any controversy matter where
respecting such law, every Judge every court. every
he house would not extend to the Territoes but the
supreme will inbodied in the law extends wherever
there are persons who owe obedience to il.
The into which many persons have fallen upon
this point results from their coHfoundng the objects
subjects Of Certain provisions Of the constitution with the
constitution itself The constitution may and does au-
thorze many things to be done one place. aud not at
another Shall therefore be said that does not ex-
tend io poh places requires certain duties to be per-
Does It therefore moi extend 10 all I
Ihis view OF the subject suggests the reply to Mr..
Webslers triumphant inquiry. how the constitution could
apply 70 the Territories, when the JUICES in these Terri
tories hold their appointments not during good
as required BY the constitution, but only for Term OF
years. The answer is very plain and simple Ii the
Territories for term of years. how can il be said that il
does not extend to them fiji does NOT authorize it, then
away goes the argument founded upon this difference Of
tenure.
Having succeeded, Mr. Chairman, as trust have, in
showing that the constitution coatros all the agents Of
the government established by il, wherever they may
bewhether in the States or in the Territories al home
or abroadl proceed to consider whether slavery pro-
hblted IN California or anywhere else, by force Of any
prohibit or abolish slavery in any place country sub
Ject e Is opeIsllon' 50. show me the provision by
which this is effected In what clause section will Il
oe foundt is not for me to prove that the constitution
works no such results II is incumbent on those who
hold the affirmative side OF the argument TO point out
where and how slavery Is prohibited BY the constitution
But LEI me ask how that slavery continued to exist
~ Louisiana and Florida after their acquisition from
France and Spain, the constitution. Of lis own proper
force, abolishes prohibits wherever operates! Let
me not be told that lis continued existence secured
by treaty; Tor treaty could have any validity that
made in contravention OF the constitution Why is not
slavery abolished in the District of Coumba--nay WHY
not in the Staes--if the position ara assaing Be cor.
ectl The constitution oil the United States Is the su
preme law OF the land and no State could maintain for
strument.
think, Mr. Chairman, that am justified in conclud.
ing that i slavery DC prohibited 10 California is
by the force and operation OF the constitution OF the
United States But is It prohibited there by any act of
Congress- II SO, show it 10 me. When was il passed
What lis provlsonsi But this will hardly be al
frmed Nogentleman will be so bold as to maintain that
any act o Congress has been passed. aboshng or
prohibiting slavery in the territory acquired from Mexi
made-up to this time happily unsuccessfuo procure
the passage OF an act for this very purpose.
But il by the treaty with exco. recognising our
Terriioryi shall not. Mr. Chairman stop 10 show that
such stipulation would have had validity, nor is
i perhaps material to suggest that the country al
ready ours before that treaty was negotiated simply
deny that II contains any such provision II any such
exists, ett be pointed 1t is not then by the const
luton BY any act Of Congress o by the Mexican treay
there at all There is only one other sort Of law to
which that Territory Is supposed to be subjects and
remains to inquire whether slsvsrys prohibited BY that
existing at the time our title accrued
know. sir, that this is the ground upon which gentle
men on the other side will be disposed TO rest their agu
ment | know, too. that very many persons in the
South-men OF gallant spirit and patriotic mpulses-who
are quick TO feel and ready to resist the medated aggres
SION oil the North entertain the opinion that slavery is
prohibited institution in California and New Mex.
leo, under the operation OF law derived from the
United States and independent OF the constitution and the
acts OF Congress With great Difference TO these opin
ions, beg leave TO say that think they proceed from
an imperfect understanding of the views OF writers
on national law and the reasoning oil some OF courts
OF justice this fubect The position assumed by those
who maintain that slavery prohibited institution
in California is, that the Mexican laws, existing there
at the time Of its conquest or, II gentlemen please. its
acquisition by treaty, continue until they repealed or
annulled BY some express and positive legislation; and
that slavery abolished and forbidden by Mexico,
Il Is now prohibited, because the Mexican law still
unues IN force. Sir, with all my respect for the high
authorities that have assumed aud announced this posi-
hoI, take leave say that, in my humble judgment il
Is erroneous il is dangerous deny that any MeI-
icaa law force at ALL in any territory belonging to
the United States, except by adoption into our own
CODE by the authorizes OF government, having
jurisdiction over the subject What, cir have we con-
quered these people by our only TO be conquered in
turn by their iotcsi Is conro the inhabitants
country quietly surrendered enjoyment than il was
when our possession was contested, aid their snbmis
sion involuntary The very proposition involves a
fusion of ideas Stated in another form, its incongruly
Just as apparenthey haze right 10 govern u.s. t
choose 10 gouern them
Let examine the sources OF this erroneous doctrine.
have said that II proceeds think, from msunder-
standing of the effect and meaning OF some OF our
judicial decisions do mean to attack these dec-
s,ops but only 10 explain Ibem though do not wish
be understood as admitting that the given by
Judges ior deciding cause IN particular way OF
any sort OF obligation upon u.s. except Tar as they may
be commended 10 US by their intrinsic value Their
DECISIONS are binding enough; certainly II y not our
versy which ii their duty TO settle but, for their
reasons they may be just what they please. That is
matter ior themselves entirely.
! There are two kinds OF law by which the American
people governed and by which their rights of person
and property are ascertaned and controedexisative