Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1851-06-14

Venton as they please think 1t Is the right word.
Mr.. FOOTEs | do not care about the words,
| but the effect of the amendment. Holding that
the treaty under which this territory was acquired
has carried the constitution of the United States
into these tefritores-the fact being, in mt iudg-
ment that the act of conquest carried the consti-
tuition there-and, further, the fact that the bill
ITSELF on the face of it, carries the constitution
there, | want no aid from congressional enactment
in behalf of the guaranteed lights of the South.
am willing to stand upon the constitution, as we
were formerly advised to do by the distinguished
colleague of the senator from South Carolina not
now living, (Mr Cahoun.) l do not wish to
stand upon anything but that crock" of the con-
stitution he emphatically called it. / believe
that southern rights, guaranteed by the cOnstitu-
ton of the United States, in no danger from
the laws of conquered country. | shall, there
FORE vote against the amendment, because L be-
leve it to be in opposition to the principle of
Intervention; and with this brief statement of my
reasons, | will not further detain the Senate.
Mr.. DAVIS, of Mississippi. My colleague and
myself do not differ much as to the effect of the
constitution when brought in contact with the laws
of Mexico The question seems to be much small
er than that
Mr.. BUTLER, Tin his seat 1t lis much smaller
Mr.. DAVIS, of Mississippi. The question Is
whether it is necessary to have suit to determine
whether the constitution of the United States does
repeal these laws, whether we shall save emil
grants to that country the expense and delay of
those suits by an act of Congress which declares
what he and [ believe.
Mr.. CLAY. Mr. President the great principle
which pervades throughout that bill is the prnci-
pie of non-inventon by Congress upon the subject
of the institution of slavery. Now, what is the
amendment proposed 1t is better to come at
once to the point. We understand the object of it.
There are laws existing there, in California, the
newl y acquired territory, which, according to one
opinion, supposed to abolish slavery. These
laws, according to that opinion, are in existence
now. If Congress has no power to intervene upon
the subject of slavery according to the southern
doctrine, if | may so designate it, how can Con
gress repeal laws which abolish slavery and ere
ate CbstructiOns to the transportation of slaves
If Congress repeal existing laws prohibiting
slavery, could not Congress enact laws authorizing
the introduction of slavery, or, if slavery already
existed there, make laws to abolish it What, in
other words is the difference between the direct
action of congressional legislation upon the subject
of slavery, to introduce to prohibit it, or to exer
else the power of Congress to repeal existing laws
have that declared the abolition of slavery? That
is the point The principle of non-intervention
seems to to be clearly violated in the attempt
to repeal the local laws it could be violated IN
the attempt, by the force and power Of COMPRESSION
al enactment, to introduce it.
Mr.. DAVIS, of Mississippi. The senator from
Kentucky confounds, by his generalization, the
local laws of the United States with the laws of the
republic of Mexico. All this has been argued
again and again. It is not Inference OF Con-
gress with the local laws of any part of the United
States It's but Congress discharging its duty to
carry out the provisions and guarantees of the
stitution of the United States. We all know very
well that the constitution is composed of two parts
principles and provisions. Principles go with
i DE-
find obstruction in the way of enjoying our con-
stitutiona rights which obstruction we require to be
removed. We do not ask Congress to enlarge our
constitutional rights to abride the constitutional
rights of any body else But We claim of Congress
that these foreign obstructions to the enjoyment
Of the rights of the citizens of the United States
shall be removed. Although it may be in our
power to have them removed by an appeal to the
courts, calling upon them to remove by their
adjudication, yet the duty of Congress lies before
it; and, among other things that duty is to save
the citizen the necessity of seeking at the hands of
the courts those rights which it is the duty Of
Congress to protect
| have NO objection to- modify the language so
as to declare it to be null and void 1t is very
much in accordance with the position which | took
on former occasion. | do not intend by the Ian
guage to admit that these laws do exist against
the constitution of the United States, do not my
self perceive that the effect would be varied by
this change in the phraseology. | am willing,
therefore, o say declared to be ''null and void,
in lieu of the word repealed if that can make
it more acceptable to gentlemen on the other side.
The senator from Kentucky fails to make a differ
ence between the power to protect and the power
to destroy-the difference between the duty to
protect and the right to destroy. Sir, it does not
follow that because we call upon the Congress of
the United States to protect the citizens OF the
United States in the enjoyment of their property,
that we thereby acknowledge the right in the Con
gress of the United States to deprive them of that
property The one is a duty-the other is express
ly forbidden by the constitution to be done The
distinction is too broad, and has been too often and
too ably discussed by others, too strong cnforc-
ed, to render it at all important for me to detain
the Senate about a further discussion now.
Hr. BUTLER. l hold that it was the solemn
duty of this government, the day after acquired
this territory, to extend our jurisdiction it,
and to repeal all the laws of the conquered coun-
try, that might substitute in lieu thereof the
laws of the conquering country. Has it come to
this, that we afraid to repeal the laws of
quered country for fear that under that repeal
portion of the citizens of the United States may
have fair eligibility to share in this conquest
Mr.. F0OTE. VIII my honorable friend allow
me to ask him whether or not he considers the laws
to which he refers the subject of slavery to be
Mexico? Because, if he does, and will say so,
such is my respect for his legal requirements, that
it will induce me to consider whether my original
/ - IL, ,fr,na not