Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-02-11

i
cipe of the legislation of 1850 If any thing more is
meant by the principle Of the legislation u 1850 than
the which adopted at that time in refer
ence the Territories of New Mexico and Uah-for
may that those the Legislative measures
ferred to-f any thing is than aa certain
adopted and enacted in reference to those
Territories take issue that point. do not know
it could be proved that even in reference to those
Territories, principle was enacted at all certain
measure or, you please of measures was
acted in reference to the Territories of New Mexico and
Utah but do not know that you call This enactng
o principle 1t is certainly not enacting principle
which is carry with 1t rule for other Territories lying
in other parts OF the country and in different legal po
ston As to the principle of nonntervertion on the
part of Congress in the question of slavery do not nd
that either principle measure il was en-
acted N those Territorial bills of 1860 do not unless
have greatly misread them, find that there is any thing
at all which up to that Every Legislative OF
those Territorial Governments must before Con-
gress for allowance dsaowauce, and believe that
under those bills, without repeating them without de-
parting from them in the slightest degree it would be
competent for Congress tomorrow to pass any law
| that subject.
How then it be said that the principle q
venon the part Of Congress in the subject Of slavery
enacted and consecrated the
of 1850! But, sir whether that be not how can
you find IN simple measure applying in terms to these
individual Territories and to them alone rule which is
to govern all other Territories with retrospective and
with prospective action? Is it not simple begging OF
the question to say measures adopt
Ell IN this specific case amount to such generalrue
bat let US try it in parallel In the earlier land
legislation of the United States believe il customary
without exception, when Territory became State,
require that there should be stipulation in their State
constitution that the public lands sold within their Dor
ders should be exempted from taxation for five years after
the SALE This, believe, continued be the uniform
practice down to the year $780, when the State OF MIS-
souri, was admitted. She admitted under this stipu
laton 1t mistake not, the next State which adj
mtted into the Union-but it really is not important
whether 1T was the next notcame in without that s
1nfs g. 49, 4.
the moment when they were sold. Here was principle
as much principle it is contendedwas established in
the Y tab and New Mexico Territorial bill but did any
one suppose that it acted upon the other Territories?
oeeve the whole SYSTEM abolished under the ope
ration OF general laws and the influence of that example
may have led to the change. But, until it made by
take it for granted that the fact that
public lands sold in Arkansas were Immediately subject
TO taxation would not alter the Law in regard to the
puohc sold in Missouri in any other State where
they exempt.
There is case equally analogous to the very matter
We are now considering the prohibition permission of
slavery The ordinance of17S7 prohibited slavery in the
territory northwest of the Ohio 1880 Congress passed
an act accepting the cesson which the State Of North
had made Of the western part of her territory
Win e proyso that in reference to he territory thus
coded Congress should pass laws finding the
cipation OF slaves" Here was precisely parallel case
Here was territory in which in 17S7 slavery pro-
Mpited Here was territory ceded by North Carolina
winch became the territory of the United States south
tne ONO river, in reference to which it was stipulated
with North Carolina that Congress should pass no laws
tehang 10 the emancipation OF SLAVES. But believe it
never occurred to any that tho legislation of 1890
acted back upon the ordinance of 1887 or furnished
ny which any effect could be produced upon the state
| OF things existing under the ordinance.
certainly intend to do the distinguished chairman Of
he committee no injustice and not that full
~ comprehend his argument in this respects but think
ms report susains the view which now take Of the sub
ect tha - that the legislation of 1850 did establish
principle which designed to have any such effect
as he supposes That states how matters stood in
those new Mexican territories was supposed the
one hand that by the Mexican x loci slavery proh
oned on the other hand that ws denied and it was
that the Constitution Of the United States
to every citizen the right 60 there and take with
h any property recognised snch by any the States
Oh tae onon The report considers that similar state
Q, things now exists in Nebraska that the validity Of the
eighth section Of the Missouri act by which slavery is
prohbted IN that Territory, is doubtful and that it is
maintained by many distinguished statesmen that Con-
sres mas no power to egsate the subject Then, in
this state OF the controversy the maintains that
the OF Congress in 1850 did undertake to
decide these questions Surely they did under
take 20 decide them, they could aot settle the principle
Whch 10 ut stake in them and unless they did decide
them the measures then adopted be considered
specnc measures relating only to those cases. and
establishing principle of general operation This
70 me TO be as direct and conclusive any thing be-
AZ all events, these are not impressions which put
orh under the exgences of the present debate the
present OCCASION have never entertained any other
opinion. was called upon for particular purpose of
literary nature, to which will presently allude
distinctly shortly after the cesson of 1850 closed to draw
up narrative of the that had taken place relative
70 the passage OF the compromise of that year
had not own, the best sources of information was
not member of Congress- and had heard the Debates
which is almost indispensable to come thorough
Outstanding Of the questions discussed but inquired
those who had heard Them read the reports and had
an opportunity of personal intercourse with wohad
taken q prominent part in all Of those measures. l
never formed the idea, | received the intmaton
until got it from this report of the committee that those
measures were intended to have any effect beyond the
Territories OF Utah and New Mexico for which they
enacted cannot but think that it was intended that
they should have any larger application if it was intend
they should furnish the rule whchis supposed
tWoud nave been fact notorious the light of day.
LOOK at the words of the acts themselves. They
specific They give you boundaries The lines are rum
Inc Territories are geographically marked out They
MI particular place on the map Of the continent; and
IS provided that within those specific geographical
limits certain state of things with reference slavery
snail take place. That is all. There is not word to
tell you on what principle that is done. There is
WORD 10 tell you that that state Of things carries with it
RUE which Is to operate elsewherc-retrospectiye
upon territory acquired in 1903, and prospectively on
territory That shall be acquired to the end of time There
- not word to carry the operation of those
over the geographical boundary which laid down in the
bills themselves
1t would be singular if under any circumstances the
measures adopted should have this extended effect with
out any words to indicate it. 1t would be singular if there
was nothing that stood in the way; but when you
slider that there is positive enactment in the waythe
eighth section Of the Missouri law which YOU now pro-
pose to repeal because it does stand the wayhow can
think that these enacnents cf 1850 in reference to
Utah ana New Mexico were intended 10 oyerleap these
boundaries In the face positive law to the contrary and
to fan upon ana decide the organization Territories in
region purchased from France nearly y wears before
I IN m n mo- g,,