Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-02-15

North Carolina Ind made If the western part of
her territory, with the proyiso that in reference
10 the ferritory thua coded Congress should pass
40 laws 'tending to the emancipation of slaves"
Here was a precisely parallel case. Here was
territory in which in i7s7 slavery was prohibited
Here was territory eeded by North Carolina,
which became the territory OF the United States,
south of the Ohio River in ref renee TO which it
was stipulated with North Carolina that Congress
should pass no laws tending to the emancipation
of slaves But believe it never occurred to IA
nv one that the legislation of 100 acted back up
on the ordinance of 17s7, or furnished a rule by
which any effect could he produced upon the
state of things existing under the ordinance.
certainly intend 10 do the distinguished chair
man of the committee no injustice; and am not
sure that | fully comprehend his argument in this
respect but | think his report sustalns the view
which now take of the subject; that Is, that tho
legislation of 1850 did not establish IA principle
which was designed to have any such effect as he
supposcs. That report states how matters stood
in those new Mexican territories. 1t was sup
posed on the one hand that by the Mexican ier
loci slavery was prohibited. On the other hand
that was denied, and il was maintained that the
Constitution of the United States secured to eve
ry citizen the right to 90 there and take with him
any property recognised as such by any OF the
States of the Union. The report considers that
n similar STATE III Iliipr ilpN tAi6tS III
that the validity of the eighth section of the Mis-
souri, act by which slavery is prohibited in that
Territory, is doubtful, and that it maintained
by many distinguished statesmen that Congress
has no power TO legislate ON the subject. Then,
in this state of the controversy, the report main
tains that the legislation of Congress in 1850 did
not undertake to decide these questions. Surely,
if they did not undertake to decide them they
could not settle the principle which is ut stake in
them and, unless they did decide them. the mea-
sures then adopted must be considered as spcci
fc measures, relating only to those cases, and not
establishing a principle of general operation.-
This seems to me TO be as direct and conclusive
as any thing can be.
At all events, these are not impressions which
are put forth under the exgencies of the present
debate or of the present OCCASION. have never
entertained any other opinion. | was called up
on for particular purpose, of literary nature,
to which will presently aude more distinctly,
shortly after the cesson of 1850 closed to draw
up a narrative of the events that had taken 30
relative to the passage of the compromise meas
ures of that year. | had not, | own, the best
sources OF information: | was not ember of
Congress, and had not heard the deba which
is almost indispensable to come to "A thorough UNI
derstanding ofthe questions discussed; but | in
CURED of those who had heard them, | read the
reports, and had an opportunity of personal in
tercourse with some who had taken prominent
part in all of those measures. | never formed
10 idea, never received the intimation until
got il IRON this report Of he committee, that those
measures were intended to have any effect be-
yond the Territories of Utah and New Mexico,
for which they were enacted. cannot but think
that if it was intended that they should have any
larger application, if it was intended that they
should furnish the rule which is now supposed it
would have been u fact as notorious as the light
of day.
Look at the words of the acts themselves
They are specific. They give you boundaries
The lines are run. They fill particular place
on the map of the continent; and it is provided
that within those specific geographical limits a
certain state of things with reference to slavery
shall take place That is all There is not a
word to tell you on what principle that is done
There is not word to tell you that that state of
things carries with it rule which is to operate
elsewhere-retrospectiv upon territory acquir-
ed in 1903, and prospectively ON territory that
shall be acquired to the end of time. There is
not a word to carry the operation of those meas
ures over the geographical boundary which is
laid down in the bills themselves.
1t would be singular if, under any circumstan-
ces, the measures adopted should have this ex-
tended effect without any words to indicate it
1t would be singular if there was nothing that
stood i'll the way; but when you consider that
there is positive enactment in the way-the
eighth section of the Missouri law, which you
now propose to repeal because it does stand in
the way--how can you think that these enact
ments of 1850 in reference to Utah and New
Mexico were intended to overlap these bounda-
ries in the face of positive law to the contrary,
and to fall upon and decide the organization of
Territories in region purchased from France
nearly fifty years before! Sir, it is to me most
singular thing that words of extension in 1854
should be thought necessary in this bill to give the
effect supposed to have been intended to the pro-
visions of the acts of 1850 and that it should not
be thought necessary in 1850 to put these words
of extension into the orig nal bills themselves.
TO BE CONTINUED.