Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-14

, clare that slavery shall exist there; and any
other State where slavery does not exist may
declare that itshall. The people living within
the limits of State where it does exist may
! declare that il shall not exist. Thisis q power
which may be exercised rightfnlly by the peo-
pie OF every sovereign State within the Union.
When we formed ourselves into this great CON
federacy, there was scarcely q State where
slavery did not exist. What became ofslavery?
Was it abolished By the federal government !?
No. 1t was abolished, where it was abolished,
by the State governments themselves They
exercised the power Of declaring that it should
not exist within such States aud if they exer
cised that power, surely Congress could not
exercise it. If the power resided in the States
it didnot exist in the Congress Of the United
i States. That il does exist within the States
is clearly and fully established They have
abolished slavery, and declared that should not
exist, and they may again, If they choose, de-
clare that it shall. But such power could not
have been exercised on the part of the federal
government. They could not have said that
slavery shall not exist in New York they
could not have said that it shall not exist in
Kentucky, or any other State See what a
monstrouus -absurdity it. Wmld- Involve, il the
people of the State may declare that it shall
not exist, and Congress may exercise the power
of saying that it shall exist. DO You not see
that here is a conflict of sovereignty in the two
acts I?
Sir the most fearful consequences would re-,
suit to the whole country ifsuch q construction
as this could be given TO the Constitution of the
United States. Then, the act here, which was
passed, and which lays prohibition upon the
people of the States to be formed out of this
territory belonging to Texas, is an unconstitu-
tional act it is utterly void, and has no oblig-
atory force whatever upon the people living
within the limits OF such a State. That is the
construction which, 1t seems to me, must una.
voidably be given to it. You can give it no
other. What, then, is the meaning of this
Why there is no prohibition upon slavery at all,
so far as regards those territories. The act,
which was intended as a prohibition, if it was
intended atall, was intended to prohibit slave
ry within the limits of the State This act is
void. Then there is no prohibition at all upon
the people living withinlhc limits Of the State.
Admit that you may extend it to the people
outside of the State and in the territory, yet
if it is unconstitutionaly and void it cannot
reach them, as it fails to reach the people living
within the State.
How, then, is the whole question to be set
tied? How is it left by the acts of 1850? If
am mistaken in the construction of the acts
have here given. there is still another provi-
sion which declares that its application could
not be to the territory north Of $50 30> north
latitude. The words are:
"When admitted as State, said territory or
any portion of the same, shall be received into the
Union with or without slavery, az their constitl-
tons may precrbe at the time OF their admission"
There can be no language clearer than this.
Even admitting the fact to be that am mis-
taken insupposing that the proviso in the resolu-
ton annexing Texas to the MON is not uncon-
stitutional, yet here is q proviso which declares
that the people may or may not have slaves
within the territory, as they may think proper
when their representatives come to act upon
the subject in their State capacity. Can it be
doubted, then, that it was the intention of those
/ who framed the act that slavery might or might
not exist, as the people determined within the
! limits Of this whole territory? The only way
of reconciling the two apparent inconsisten-
cies in the act Of 1850, organizing the Terri
tory of New Mexico. is to apply the proviso in
the Texas resolution to the territory within the
| limits of Texas, as defined by the act of 1850.
If you do not do that, there is no inconsistency.
II you do not do that, the proviso which have
read last is inconsistent with the proviso which
declares that slavery, north Of $50 go north lati-
4 tude, shall never exist within the limits Of that
| territory.
! This, then, it seems to me, is the only fair
construction to be given to these provisions.
If am correct in the view / have taken, what
was the great principle settled? What did
you settle in this case? You settled this ques-
ton (; you declared the right of the people in
every Territory, and of every State, to deter
mine for themselves whether they would or
would not have slavery. You declared great
principle in relation to the people ofthe slave
holding States. That principle was, that they
in common with the people living in the free
States. who move to the Territory in question:
should take along with them whatever property
they desired to carry into that Territory. That
is the principle you settled; and that prnci-
pie as ! understand from those engaged in the
passing Of the compromise acts, was intended
to be final upon the subject of slavery. 1t was
notintended to be applied merely to the Terri
tory in question. 1t was intended to be ex-
tended to every territory belonging to the peo-
pie Of the United States, and which was 10 be
settled by the people of the different States.
This was the great principle which was settled,
and it is because it was settled, and settled as
| understand it, finally and forever, that /,
one among others here, am in favor of remor-
ing what conceive to be an unconstitutional
restriction upon the rights Of the people of the
several States.
Slr, lDe ACT OF lSZU declares that slavery
north of go 300 north latitude shall be forever
prohibited. That act extends as well to the peo-
I pie wthinthe Territory embraced within the law,
as TO the people within the States, when States
shall hereafter be organized out of such Terri
tory. 1t extends to both. It lays the prohi-
bition upon the people Of the Territory; and it
lays it upon the people Of the State after States
are organized; for its language is, that slare,g
shall be within the limits Of such Territory for
ever prohibited. That act, in my humble
opinion, is void, for the reason which l have
heretofore given. II is a restraint upon the
people of State after they shall have been
formed into State out of Territory, to deter
mine for themselves whether they will or will
not have slavery. II does net stop in the Ter.
,, ritory, but restraints them when they have be-
come organized into State. If States are TO
come into this Union upon equal rights, and
upon footing Of equality, nothing can be
clearer to my mind than that the prohibition
avta, Ia1 a. IL