The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-03-11

Why sit that this night is limited the political terrific
RES ana u not with the public property or do
mann why does II cease the establishment of State
government ana how the latter control restrain
privilege held undsr The general constitution For il
must DC eealected that this claim is advanced
cured ny thSt instrument upon the principles of just
equay And We all know that 10 il the express declare
uon mat us the supreme law of the land, and that the
laws and Constitutions of the several States void when
take slaves from southern State the public domain is
essebal to that free and equal enjoy of il which the
constitution secures 10 the whole Unions how happens it,
repeat That TINS nghl does where
ever saeh oomai exists and remain guar ed by the
prone law OF the land all is oil disposed OFF,
me lac IS The general position is involved in nexcabe
ihcnites' Before the settler has made purchase and
while he 10 intruder is living upon the public domain
aud rs protected IN the constitutional rights which belong
mat eohaon whatever these may be- equally IN state
ana iefrofy But as he acquires legal title TO
occupy hls tract by purchasing ten such tract
make part OF the pabic domain and passes the
CORY OF private property, with all the incidents belonging to
A. hgfeeapy 10 Inc law OF the place unless, ndeed II IS
saved from such fate by peculiar privilege That
privilege cannot be founded upon the pon that Just
equality secures the enjoyment of the public domain 10 all
IL can only secure equality Of purchase for, have
seem that very act tahes from the tract which The object
Of It, It's character part of such domain and The laws of
the Uaied States respecting the public land wherever
may be- instantly operate upon it. IL not there
fore, the night to ENJOY the public domain but the right TO
ENJOY popriy severed herefrom which is the claim ad-
vanced and TO hold thereon any species of property
constitutional incident to tho right of purchase, which, il
alleged, would be unequal wthou, it. The proposition is,
that the public domain belongs equally ALL because
qulred by all and that therefore all equal constitutional
rights settle upon with all their property. California
and New Mexico alike within the of this postu
late both with respect acquisition and Both
acquired by The common blood and of the whole
Union 'terrtory of the United States both equally
belongs the whole Unon IT, the principle therefore,
just constitutional equality czen Of any of the States
has right 10 carry his property to the common terory
in the latter, why not in former, unless you
that the constitution of California overrdes supersedes
the constitution of the United Staes If that fundamental
the claimed il becomes those who acbno Wedge
difference the existence of this right between State
and Territory to show it by the terms expressed i'm
piled, of that great If there such
difference exists and both of these political communities
stand the relation this claim of equality. Where
the of certain propertyslaves for examples
sldered essential TO the enjoyment of constitutional right
equal right purchase and hold the public lands,hen
such either indefinite in its Duration those who
temporary existence bound point by
what principle of the constitution the establish
ment OF State government any than that the
abshment of such the domain passes from the
Unian State For il would be great suppose
that the of the errtory other property of the
United States any State depends upon the of the
State government Such property Is secured wherever
hes by constitution well In the old States the
In the former there is much property of the general
government consisting of forts, arsenas &C., which has
purchased, and holds landowner, without any cesson
of jurisdiction In such that retained the
State but the property itself be seized than
the property of Individual The eompacts with the
States generally contsn several provisions, and among
4
ceve valuable consideration. Whether these compacs
provide recognition of the title of the Uailed States
not, that title wholly independent Of any such arrange
men and depends for lts security upon the
Any proposition must be logically fae which necessarily
leads false conclusion This claim of a constitutional
right hold slaves upon land purchased from the United
States incident to its equal enjoy mentn if 1t exist
all m terminated by the operation of the gem
ersl constitution that instrument supreme within the
sphere of lis jurisdiction and other authority
control action 1t is universally conceded that this right
when prohibited by the constitution of State and
ss the assumption upon which the demand rests IL well
founded, would render II independent of State action and
continue It's existence independent of State ntedlcon il
follows that be maintained consistently with the
principles Of our political institutions.
do not know who claims the paternity of this preten-
sion-when where originated. IL is certainly of very
BIRTH unknown heretofore political discussions
Of this general subject The surprise felt its first APP
pearance has all diminished by time examination
but rather increased when the readiness and zeal with
which has been received and adopted by large portion
the country. cannot but think that 1t mas not undergone
indeed that safe undergo, that
gauon which alone establish the validity of grea consul
tuona prsenson recent IN its origin, and important
| in its consequences,
examining relates the constitutional right OF American
citizen 20 lake his any Territory ohe United States
there hold them whatever may be the prohibition Of
the local law and the authority of Congress
strain him by legal enactmenu, which ] entirely deny,
whether they IN the form Of ordinance of n
w lmot provso.
Lis not ue extraordinary that after all the complaints
we heard upon this subject Congress has passed
single law excluding any mao or property from the Mexican
acquisitions. Not one New Mexico and Utah remain
Just as open To the admission Of slavery this hour they
were the hour they passed into the OF the United
States and its from California is the OF the
people, assembled in form their constitution
and not the OF the general government.
MIR Rho.t indeed, ia a remarkable speech in this body
remarkable for American oluzen in American legs-
ature-underook, by peculiar process To hold this gov
ernment ponsble for measure-mang the
more in h,s long catalogue of offences.
Syllogisticay his argument runs thus
You have no right 10 pass the Wimo proviso.
You admitted California into the Union.
California inserted the Wilmot proviso into her conBu
tom
Therefore, you passed INC Wilmot proyso'
Such are the premises and the conclusions charged by Mr.
Rhet upon another senator the doctrine Of the latter
bot assumed by the former bis own, when he said r
the right"
SIR the wrong, both Of them wrong, II Mr.
Rnett understood doubt tho proposition intended to be
dvnneed by the member referred have put the argu
ment in the syogsc form emitting lite detss, that the
process may be the apparent and the conclusion the
satisfactory unsatisfactory, ~ approved dis
approved; compound syogism, think they call this
form n the schools Bot al the subdeues OF verbal
the days of Aristotle dovnwards, with their
major and minor terms their copuas and predcses and
all the other machinery by which words usup the place Of
ideas could establish the truth Of such conclusion
persuade the American people that because State sx.
oudes admits slavery by ls constitution, Congress re-
sponsbe for that when provides for the admission of
such State INTO the Union repeat not act Of the gen
ersI government has touched this claim Of right in the
slightest degree and IL ever American might by law
slaves any Of the regions acquired from Mexico he
may do il yet far regards the operation Of
gressonal legislation It's judicial question which may
he IoCax t,,.f dfNn fof