Washington sentinel., 1854-04-07

j southern State present voted in favor of il; and,
what is more striking, every southern delegate
voted the same way, Mr.. Jefferson alone ex-
eepted."
He says also:
at may be inferred that il was compromise
between the southern and northern States, the
| terms of which were that slavery should be ex.
| cuded from the Territory, upon condition that
fugitive slaves in il should be given up to their
owners"
Thus it will be seen that Mr.. Jefferson was
| the only southern member who sanctioned the
ordinance ofl7S7. The fumes of his sentimen-
tality evaporated before his death for he ad-
mitted that while the white and black races
subsisted together, it was best it should be un-
der the relation Of master and slave. II VIII be
seen, too, that the rendition of fugitive slaves
| entered into the spirit of the ordinance. How
has that stipulation been kept? Let riots and
! the blood of southern slave-owners answer.
| Some of these States exclude the free black,
but throw their arms around the slave irhe,s he
comes a .tugitice, and 1eeking soith Uiolation Of
| la,c.
| proceed now, Mr.. Chairman, to examine
the Missouri restriction-the offspring of the
ordinance of 1887 ! propose to discuss it, first,
in connexion with the treaty by which we ac-
quired Louisiana, and secondly, in connexion
| with the Constitution. In the treaty find the
| following words:
"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be
incorporated in the Union of the Uaited States,
and admitted as soon as possible. according 10 the
principles of the federal Constitution TO the enjoy
ment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities
Of citizens OF the United States"
The plenary and great solicitude felt to be-
stow upon the inhabitants of the ceded terri.
tory all the rights of American citizens is seen
in the employment of three words-"rightS, sad
| vantages," "immunitiesn either would
have been sufficient These inhabitants are to
have all the privileges, exemptions, freedom,
gain, benefit, favorable circumstances" of all
other citizens Of the United States. Now, sir,
| possessing soil and climate which produce
staples to the growth of which slave labor is
necessary, do you give them the rights Of this
treaty stipulation, if you exclude them from the
| employment of slave labor, while the citizens
of other States, similarly situated, possess it?
Clearly not.
Again:
"The Inhabitants of this Territory are 10 be
incorporated into the Union Of the United States" /"
| That is, this Territory is to be constituted,
after proper probationary tests, into State or
States Of the Union. Now, sir, what is q
State, Vattel says:
"a State is body polite, a society Of men
united together 10 procure their mutual safety and
advantage by means Of their Union"
What is State under our system Of govern
ment? 1t is /" q territory inhabited by peo-
pie living under government formed by them
| selves, which government possesses, In re-
publican form, all the legislative, judicial, and
executive powers necessary to the protection OF
the lives, liberties, characters, and properties
of its citizens or which it can exercise for
their benefit, and have not delegated to the
| general government for the common defence
and general welfare of Union, composed Of
| number of States, whose rights and political
powers are all perfectly equal" Now, sir,
what right is more important than the right to
determine who shall inhabt their State, and
be benefited or injured by this as much as the
citizens of the State itself? Besides, if the
general government can prescribe that there
shall be no slavery, can it not prescribe that
there shall be no marriage? If it can define
the relations between the citizens themselves,
can it not define the relations between the citi-
zens and their State governments, and force
upon them plural executive, a lifetime judi
ciary, or legislature for twenty years? If
the federal government says that in one State
there may be slavery, and in another there
shall not be slavery, does it not, as far as its
action goes, produce inequality, and therein
break the Constitution and having broken it
in this material point, may it not violate it in
the very essences of the State governments
Now, ask, Mr.. Chairman, if this Missouri
restriction is not in derogation of this treaty
| stipulation? cannot be answered that there
were then no inhabitants in this portion of the
territory. Sir the treaty covered the geogra-
phical area of Lousiana-covered all Louis-
ana to its utmost limits. Shall we not redeem
our faith so solemnly pledged in treaty COM
pact-a compact held sacred and inviolable
among all people, civilized and savage? Shall
we not wipe out this odious missouri re-
striction," which has opened upon US deep
! fountain of bitter waters which has violated
the Constitution in establishing inequality be
| tween the States; and which has so sadly stain
| ed our federal honor2
| now ask the attention of the committee, in
| the first place, to this restriction, in the light
of the Constitution. Had Congress the power
to impose it? In discussing the power Il
mean the constitutional power) Of Congress to
impose this restriction" | shall also discuss
the power of Congress to exclude the citizens
of the southern States from emigrating with
their slaves to the common territory; for the
power to do the one is identical with the power
to do the other.
Had Congress, then, the power to impose
this restriction upon the admission of Missouri?
In what clause or paragraph of the Constitu-
ton will you find it? Some of its advocates
trace it back to the third section of the fourth
article of the Constitution, which reads thus:
"The Congress shall have power to dispose Of
and make all needful rules and regulations re-
specting the territory and .other property Of the
United States"
Mr.. Calhoun. in an unanswerable argument,
refuted the position that this clause of the Con-
stitution conferred any Legislative power upon
Congress. The words ito dispose Of" refer to
property only, and of course to territory, only
in that aspect. The subsequent words, to
"make all needful rules and regulations res
pecting the territory or other property" can
not, even in loose sense, refer to government;
because, in the first place, the words, cor 9TH
er property" illustrate the use of the term ter
ritory, and show from the connexion that it
was used only in the sense of property, limited
however to places extra the States, while the
.tar,a nhran