The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-06-09
C0NGR ESSI0N Al.
SPEECH OF HON. w. w. BoYCE,
OF SOUTH CAROLYN

Tue oase peg IN .he Nohifhttee OF the Ni0Ae on the
state of tho Union. 4tHHst >t#l Et#aa+ sHI
Mr.. B0YCE said. .H. II. .Is.tj .#HuE IA5 H 3J@e
Mr.. CnAIRsAN; propose to make remarks ON the
Kansas and Nebraska bill The important feature Of this
bill IS repeal of the Missouri restriction approve
this repeal for consider this restriction unconstitutional
and unjust The authority thus to restrict slavery is at
tempted to be derived from two first under the
clause authorizing Congress to dispose Of and make all
needl rules and regulations respecting the territory
other property belonging to the United States and
ond, as an incident to the treaty making power.
In reference TO the first source insist with entire
denee that the clause is not in the slightest degree altered
by the insertion of the word territory and that the pow
conferred would be precisely the If the words ter
rory and other were stricken out and tho clause made
TO read thus The Congress shall have power to dispose
Of and make all needfu rules and regulations respecting
the property belonging to the United States prop
being e ri rsss sna s Y
stuction Us apparent from the clause ITSELF which says
territory other property evidently treating territory
ne hho 81 ops hs Ke ,s ha s
dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations
respecting, the ships-owar guns cannon, and other
property belonging to the United States Would the inser
ton of the words shpsofwar, guns, cannons give any
authority than the single word property? Certainly
not If ain right in this construction, it follows that the
only authority conferred upon Congress by this clause
over the territory is in their character Of ownership and
with reference to it property in other words the pow
Of Congress the territory under this clause is
property power the same power which every individual
has over his esate--simply this, and no more e
Now, what is the extent of this power of ownership
The to this question is at suggested by
siderng the nature Of property Property has but two
characeriscs-to be used and TO be disposed Of The
owner of property do but two things with his prop
ery-use it or dispose Of it. Congress, from the very
words Of the constitution and the very nature OF things,
only exercise rghtthat of dsposing Of the terri
tory II is simply absurd The whole right of Con-
gress limited to the right of disposng of the terri
tory The whole power of Congress the territory
"hath this extent more Congress has the power to
dispose of the territory and make all needfa and
regulations to effect this purpose Those who claim that
this clause authorizes the prohibition OF slavery in the Ter
ritories show that such prohibition is necessary
means to the dsposng of the territory but apprehend
will attempt so absurd task Indeed the con-
trary evident from the slightest reflection for Congress
though of the territory is only trustee for the
States; and in disposng which is the thing sell
ing the territory is bound by every conceivable trust OBJ
gation thus dispose of sell to the best advantage
which implies yhing else but restricting the sale Of the
territory those who not Shareholders but looks to
the largest composition of settlers whether from the North
or the South L s+Ie, ~ g,Y f,.t. E e,
think this portion of the argument sufficiently clear
already but while upon this point it may not be map
proprate to show that the constitution itself distinguishes
between this property power over the territory to which
have been alluding and more comprehensive govern
mental power for in another clause OF the constitution
governmental power under the terms legislation
is conferred upon Congress oyer the seat of the
forts srsena &C. the trainers Of the constitution Thus
showing their conception of the derence1n In the nature o
the powers conferred by the two sections When they
speak in regard To the territory, they use very guarded
language when they provide for the seat OF government
they use the strong terms exclusive legislation
will now proceed TO the other source from which the
power prohibit slavery in the Territories is derived
an incident to the treay-making power Assuming our
right to acquire territory 1t Is insisted the right to gov
ern it follows a necessary consequence Admitting We
have the right govern the Territory is this unlimited
power Of government not Updoubteiy there are ex
press limitations and implied ones The Territory o.
Louisiana cedcd to the United States What the
United States A Union Of equal States The equality o
the States is the foundation Of the Union the government
rests on this theory The federal government the agen
of the States in governing the Territories is bound to
gard this principle of equality it cannot disregard i
without gross violation of its trusts The prohibition
slavery does violate this principle of equality IL is there
fore In violation Of the implied limitations the govern
mental power Of Congress the Territories Again II
is received maxim in the law that you cannot do that in
directly which you cannot do directly. You cannot
pressly prohibit the citizens of the southern States from
emgrating the Territories il you prohibit them from
taking their slaves with them you practically exclud,
them therefore you cannot prohibit them from taking
their slaves with them.
When we consider that the constitution recognised
slavery in Its most extreme formhe importation Of slaves
that requires fugitive slaves TO be delivered that
admits this institution element Of representation Il
it monsrous assumption of power for Congress- Tho
creature of the States to undertake TO sgmatze this
institution and put under the ban in the Territories and
all under implied power derived from principal power
itself OF doubtful validity Ii is clear think, that the
power prohibit slavery n the Territories cannot be de
rived from the power TO acquire territory.
There Is view of this subject which arises out Of the
treaty acquiring this Kansas and Nebraska Territory, to
which IL may no, be amiss to aludc According to the
treaty "the inhabitants Of the ceded territory shall be pro
tected in the free enjoyment of their property Now Is II
not clear that any inhabitants Of Louisiana living at the
time Of the treaty and living would have the right TO
take their slaves into Kansas Nebraska TO the
tent at the ratification Of the treaty. So then the
Missouri restriction Is In violation Of the treaty 20 them
and void Bat the constitution provides that the citizens
Of each State shall be entitled to all privileges Of the
era States II therefore any citizens Of Louisiana have
right TO 90 into these Territories with their slaves the
citizens of every other State have the same right
pass 10 consider this Missouri restriction by the
test Of that great principle of justice which, above all
things else should characterize the federal n
its action towards the States The argument this point
will be brief for the teaching Of justice not TO be worked
out by rigid logic; il is light from above which flashes
upon the truthful soul How did acquire this terri
tory BY purchase, Where did the money come from
From the South aud the North What Is the irresistible
conclusion That the territory acquired should be ad-
mnisered BY the federal government for the mutual ben
eft of both North and South This exclusion OF slavery Is
practical scquesraon of It for the exclusive benefit Of
the North Is this justice II is perverson Of terms to
speak Of such action and justice In the same breath II
kind Of usticeho justice the wocxtends TO the lamb
the justice unreenng power extends TO m defenceoss vic
Tins. II is wonderfully like the justice arrogant Rome
granted 10 exhausted Carthage forbdding her TO touch
Saguntum or pass the Iberus II Is established princ
pie OF the equity Jurisprudence the most beautiful system
Of morality exant out Of the Bible that purchase land
with the money Of b. there Is resulting trust that shall
hold the land for the benefit ofB Should THE persuasive
morality apply TO the federal government in reference 70
the purchase Of these Territories its
sublime aspect Is but the highest manifestation of human
justice II was grand conception Of great king which
induced the sentiment that IL Justice were banshed from
all the rest OF the earth II should at least find refuge in
the breasts Of kings How much moro approprias that
this sole resngpaee of justice should he In the councils
of the great republct
The Missouri restriction being liable 10 such vital OBJ
ections should he repealed Bn i repeal IA resisted by
large portion OF the North various grounds
the md tc AZ