The daily union., 1852-02-14


While hs South from s7 400 has only reached TO- ssoss
The number of square miles OF territory belonging to
the States north OF Mason and Dxons line was four
times less than tha belonging to the States south at the
time OF The treaty OF peace in l7S3 Now it is near three
times greater.
lproceed now with my argument TO show that our
cuson from the limits Of California not only unjust,
but that, in my judgment, il was unconstitutional. |
face of the Senate OF the United States il is bold po-
son to take before the country. ! believe, however,
that can show that the manner in which we were ex-
cuded from California was violation OF the consitu
onal rights OF the South and if was violation OF our
constitutional rights, il was violation OF the constitution
founded in justice. In the place. il founded in
constitutional right. Why claim TO this territory
founded in justice Because the records of the War
it was acquired, the South furnished fory-hve thou
sand and large fraction over, and the North only
twenty three thousand and small fraction over
showing that the South furnished two TO OF the
men who went out 10 fight the battles of the country
which resulted in the acquisition Of this territory.
Even if there other reasons upon the fair prin-
cipes OF justice the South having paid also her pro.
portion OF the expenses of the should have been
entitled TO share equally in The territory acquired. But
even the gallant men from the South who went out to
the battle were entitled short time afterwards TO enter
i with their property Even if Washington, the father
OF his country, who achieved independence,
living to-day southerner and STAKEHOLDER he was he
would not be entitled TO enter that territory with his
property have said we had right there, founded in
justice, and that we had also constitutional right Is it
necessary TO prove that this is constitutional right II
is assumed by that it was constitutional right.
because il resulted from the elementary principle OF the
equality OF the States which lies at the foundation OF
our government and their consequent equality of right
in the territory, which the common property Of all the
States. This position maintained in an argument,
never yet answered, which made by the honorable
senator from Georgia, [Mr BERRIENl on the question of
the admission of California into the Union, and il is
necessary for me TO dwell upon that point further will
however, read simply in support of this position, the
opinion OF the late chief justice OF Mississippi, Chef
5n as1s ShaksSy which will Ss doubles: be regarded as
sssippi October convention held-the first general
meeting of the people of our State in opposition to the
of Congress the subject Of slavery,
nected with its exclusion from the Terrories-Chief
Justice Sharkey, who was the president Of that
tion, in his opening address TO il, said
"The attempt by Congress TO prohibit slavery In the Ter
rto Of Caiornia has caused this meeting fho territory
e common properly There each citizen Of the United
enjoyment Of the territory am proud to say that, in
acquiring IL, Mississippi displayed as much valor as any
blood in proportion TO their number the citizens of any
Of the States They distinguished for their prowess
restrictions be imposed upon right enjoy the
conquest Can we, should we yield the fruits Of our vaor
and surrender with constitutional right OF equality u
The learned chief justice here gives his opinion that
this was right founded on the right OF the equality OF
the States TO enjoy equally the territory which was the
common property of the States. What does ne say
further
"Congress cannot deprive OF Il, and ought not II Il
coudeannot say that IL we we must leave our property
and exclude the property Of the people of the souhrrn
is effect exclude the people, and appropriate
the country the northern States. Such power Ia
possessed by government possessing sovereignty could
not be rightfuly exercised even by monarchy"
This was the opinion of Chief Justice Sharkey on this
subject when il first before the people OF Misss-
spp But ii is necessary prove by direct clause
Of the constitution that we had constitutional right to
equality in this territory will read from article in
the constitution which is directly in point The third
section OF the fourth article of the constitution is IN these
words
The Congress shall have power dispose Of and make
all needful rules and regulations respecting the eioy or
other property belonging the United Sate ana nothng
In this constitution shall be construed as 20 preudce
any claims OF the United States, OF any particular
State"
do not read this clause of the constitution for the pur
pose for which il is sometimes usedto show that Con-
gress has Jurisdiction political jurisdiction. for the esab
lshment OF government territories under this
tce-bnt for the purpose OF showing that by the last
part OF IT, every State las an equal constitutional right IN
these territories. II is IN these words
nothing this constitution shall be so construed as
prejudice any claims Of The United States OF any
iiculnr State"
I have established the fact that we had a const-
tutona right to equality in these territories upon
principle admitted TO be at the foundation OF our govern
ment and have also established il by direct clause in
the constitution which says that nothing in the constu
ton shall be construed TO prejudice the claims OF
any particular State.
We have been divested Of this constitutional right in
California and the question arises How have we been
deprived OF III
The whole South assumed that Congress did not have
the power pass what is called the Wmo proviso, and
thus by direct act declare that slavery should not exist
there The question arises, How then, could the South