Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1851-06-26
John Van Buren,s Speech.

i Ut JNtU GUlh A1BLttNE 4 o vi NhN |
contains a full report Of Mr.. Van Burens speech
O the Democracy (new linel assembled at Bur-
1t was received with great applause.
After speaking of what the great Democratic
movement for Liberty accomplished, Mr.. Van
notices
MR.. WEBSTER N THE TERRITORIES
Let us now look at what we failed to accom-
Dlish. New Mexico and Utah have been organ
into territories, without a positive prohlbl-
of slavery. The result is owing, in some
10 the vote of the House of Represen-
laying upon the table Mr.. Roots resolu-
lion instructing the Committee on Territories to
bill for the organization of these terri
tories with a prohibition of slavery. 1t is also
to be ascribed to the detection Of a distinguish
ed eastern statesman, who had been a uniform,
earnest and open advocate Of the WilmoL Pro-
viso, until the 9TH of March, 1850, when he an
nounced that 1t was unnecessary to apply it to
New Mexico and Utah, as he had discovered
that it was the " will of God" that slavery should
not go there.
AS Mr.. Webster voted to insert this proviso
in the Oregon bill as he had claimed it, in a
State convention in Massachusetts, in lo48, as
his " thunder !" as he had made several earnest
and vehement speeches IN its favor after that
time, it is a matter of curious speculation when
the will of God was revealed to Mr.. Webster.
daughter
This is a matter Of public concern (renewe
laughter) for this is not only a Daniel come to
judgement, but a judgement come to Daniel !
I(Shouts of laughter and applause The expert
ence of the past does not satisfy us that we can
safely rely upon the interference of Providence
alone to arrest the extension of slavery. The
will OF God is presumed to remain always the
same. 1t may well be supposed that he would
not desire slavery to be extended to our thirteen
original colonies, yet slavery was inflicted up.
on all of them by Great Britain. 1t required
human Legislation to drive it from the States
WHICH crn now free. Slavery extended to the
entire territory the ordinance OF
Mr.. Jefferson was necessary 10 abs!ish it. Slav-
cry existed IN the territory of Iowa it had to
be abolished by law. The safe course, then, to
arrest its extension by law in the only mode
which has thus far proved effectual. Cheers
But if this cannot be done, we have two other
resources. In the first place we can c%onstltu-
tionally abolish slavery in these territories, II it
should be introduced. The ordinance of ~, re-
enacted by Congress in '69, produced this pre-
else result in the State of Illinois. One thous-
and slaves were emancipated by that act. |
mention this fact on the authority of Mr.. Ed
ward Coles, the first Governor of Illinois, a Nir-
GINA gentleman with a large family connec-
ton, most of whom are shareholders, but who
is nevertheless Il patriot and a philanthropist.-
The importance, then, of adhering TO this pow
er over the subject of slavery in the territories,
even when its exercise is suspended, cannot be
overrated. 1t is a power to abolish as well as a
power to prohibit, and is the great conservative
authority to which the friends of freedom must
look for protection against the agressions of
slavery.
There is another mode in which the question
may be met. If slaves are introduced into New
Mexico and Utah, slave States will be formed
in those territories, and will apply for admission
into the confederacy. They should be met at
the doors of Congress with a stern and unyield-
ing resistance. They should be charged with
having covered a free land with the ignominy
of slavery, and should be turned back upon
themselves until they have restored freedom to
its ascendency.
These are the three modes by which the
great purpose OF keeping free territory %unstain-
ed by slavery may be accomplished. They all
look to human e%xertion. They rely on the low-
er law they distrust the Intervention which
Mr.. Webster so recently counts upon, and they
reject the revelations of this new Moses on the
Mount.
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW
This another question which has arisen since
the last Presidential election, and which was in
no degree involved in that controversy. Iallude
to the Fugitive Slave Law. On a recent occa-
SION stated the reasons why | believed that
Lace - kn ,,AuroaaIr ,ao~ w
briefly these.
Frst-That Congress had no power to legis.
late upon the subioot.
SecOnG-Tnat II they had the power, the law
was unconstitutional, because it did not give the
party seized under it a fair trial by Jury, at the
place where he was seized.
Third-That it suspended the privilege O fthe
writ of hnbeaS corpus in a case not excepted by
the constitution.
Fomth-That the 10th sections condemns Q
person conclusively to the deprivation of his lib.
erty, in his absence and without any notice OIL
hearing to him.
And | added, that as the law was unconstitu
%tional, | should resist it with all the means
could command if seized under it.
Let me offer n few suggestions, in reply t(
comments that have been made upon these prop
~ositions it is not correct to say that the suprem,
Court of the United States have ever passet
upon these questions. The case in which it il
claimed they did so, was that of Prigg Us. tn
Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania. Prigg was in
dicted for carrying off a fugitive slave. in viola
ton of the law Pennsylvania, and was convict
ed. That conviction was carried to the Suprem,
Court of the United States and reversed. Sew
eral of the judges took The ground that the pow
err of legislation on the subject of fugitive slave
! was exclusively vested in Congress and other
held that as the person seized was admitted OF
the record to have been the slave of the part,
by whom he was seized, the right of reception
! existed Independent OF any law for the purpose
The most that can be claimed from the de
. cision of that case Is, that it determined tina
Congress had exclusive power over that sub
ject.
This position carries with it the conclusion
f that the Pennsylvania law was unconstitutional
and that Prigg was improperly convicted unde
it but it Is by no means determined in wha
form Congress shall ~legislate, and if no law ha,
$ been passed by Congress on the subject, the de
cision in Prigg's case would have been precise
. ly the same, for the grant of an exclusive powe
in Congress, whether it is exercised or not. nee
! %essariIy divests the State of such power. A
r the objections that | make, therefore, to this law
d except the first, are open questions in the courts
If the law is unconstitutional, | had suppose
: that no Judge or lawyer who had any fespec
for himself, would pretend that it should b
obeyed.
t All writers upon law agree that an ~unconsti
%tutlonal act is no law it is a nullity, and is t
be treated as such. alike by oitinous as by court.
j But II is said that an individual has no right t
u judge whether a law is unconstitutional OF no
e He should and must judge. He judges at tn
d risk to be punished ii he errs. Suppose a la,
should be passed by Congress, authorizing tn
first three Union Hunkers who meet me, to pr
l." me to death. The law would not fail in th
State of New York for the want of execution
n (Laughter.) Who is the Judge of the constitu
IS tionality Of the law ? Am | to wait ill after N
fact, to have the question tested by all thes
courts?
g 1t has also been urged that a iurv trial is m