Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1849-1856, 1854-07-20

And let me tell you, that notwithstmnC-
ing the opinions and arguments Of law
yers and statesmen, the Supreme Court OF
the United States will, but two dissenting
voices, solemnly decided in the year 1900
that the ordinance of ~ was itself abro-
gated by the very constitution which your
fathers adopted, with SO much cution,-
That when the latter came into existence
by ratification, the former fell before It's
power. That the ordinance of ~ ceased
to exist in 80, and that from the very ma
ture Of things, its limitations and %rcstric-
ii .ns were merged in the great charter
which had become the organic law.
Ii will thus be seen that what Jefferson
81 fcrvently desired. namely, that by force
of positive enactment, slavery should
cease TO exist in all that magnificent do
main, which had once belonged to Nir-
ginia, and which that State had, by a wise,
noble and patriotic libcrality, coded to the
confederation during the revolutionary
war although apparently accomplished
by the fourth article of the ordinance Of
'S7, was itself overthrown by the very con-
constitution for which he gave his vote -
In other words, there is nothing in that
ordinance nOw which can prevent
the States Of Ohio or Michigan from al
tering their constitutions ut pleasure, and
legaIizing, if they choose, the scryitudo of
the human race, within their borders. We
KIN Nv of course, that this will never be done.
When the Beautiful River shall desert its
course to the Gulf ofMexico and flow back
to the great lakcs-when the Mississippi
shall rush up the Falls Of St. Anthony and
pour its waters upon the bleak plains ofthe
North West-thcn you may see slavery es-
tablished in Ohio, in Iowa, in Ncbraska,
and Minnesota, but not until that impos-
sible day.
This tEen is our position in relation TO
the legal effect Of the ordinance of 'S7
which, you will keep in mind, wan moth
ing more than Il law of the old Congress,
to provide for the government Of the Ter
ritory north west Of the Ohio.
The power of this celebrated Statute OK
lists no longer, and our present Legislators
arc not trammclled by its prohibitions
But the people Of the North insist, Us well
they may, that the moral obligation Of the
ordinance, as u well understood political
compact, is still in full force, and should
bind tho consciences of Congress, if that
element of human action is still to be
found there.
For my own part, l repeat again, | think
that the recent legislation upon this ex-
citing subject is exceedingly unwise. IL
legal it is MT. Inexpedient, hurtiul, and
dangerous, | certainly consider il and
had 1 been a member ofCongress, | would
not have given my vote in favor of the bill
for the government of Nebraska and Kan
sas, in the form adopted by its reputcd au-
thor. l would have resisted il for an
other reason Congress has the undoubt-
cd power to govern the TERRITORIES Of the
United States, in any way OF form they
may choose to adopt, provided such gov
crnment be republican,, and subordinate to
the general scope and genius Of our Con-
stitution.
| remember, once to have heard a dis
tinguished statesman and lawyer observe
in argument, before the Supreme Court ut
Washington, that Congress had authority
to govern their territories just as they
pleased, '' by a Consul, or p%roconsul, or by
an Eastern Satrap." 10 this remark,
Chief Justice Marshall replied, that the
Court would reluctantly come to the con-
clusion that Congress could disregard the
general design of our institutions, and in
troduce into territories, arbitrary forms of
government, unknown to the Constitution.
But with this limitation it was decided,
more than twenty years ago, that Con-
gress has unlimited power over the terri
tories, and hence, northern gentlemen
might, with strict propriety, insist upon
it, under the Missouri compromise, That
in the territories north OF IS 80, there
should be no servitude, in order to induce
such a population to settle there, as would
como into the Union, when they sought
introduction there, with free institutions.
And by parity of reasoning if the North
might, under the COMPROMISE, have insis-
ted upon the provisions against slavery in
the territories, north of 80 80, while they
remain under the control OF Congress, 80
might the South maintain, that, IN good
faith, no objection should be made against
their institutions south of that line.
In point OF TACT the North has repeat
edly acquiesced in this view of the sui beet,
and permitted Missouri and Florida, and
Texas and Arkansas to come into the Union
as slave States, with all the political pow
or which the Constitution secures to them
in this behalf. The advantages to be gain
cd in favor Of free institutions, if gained
at all By Legislation, must be gained in
the territories before they become States
for if once admitted into the Union, no
matter upon what conditions, no matter
under what pledge, or restriction they may
be introduced, all such conditions, all
pledges and restrictions would become I'm:
constitutional and void in law, il the
S,,ta ~.A.u.. -. aI,,Il kLn-.l.. l.. Lz--
of of one atom of her co-equal sovereign
power. Let he illustrate this by exam
Pile California had the election accorded
to her 10y Congress, to cont into the
Union with, or without the institution of
slavery, according to her own choice in
this respect. She wisely elected, and
that, too, by votes of Southern mcn-Sen-
ator Gwyn amongst the numbcr,-to come
in as u FREE STATE. G.
But suppose that Congress had refused
her admission into the Union, except upon
the condition that there should be no such
thing as slavery within her boundaries;
and suppose that California, for the sake
of gaining admission, had accepted the
condition, and had come in, under a con-
stitution Of her own, which prohibited
slavery, utterly and entirely, in all its
forms and conditions would she thereby
have been deprived of the power to change
her condition, in relation to servitude, and
the holding of ~slavcsl That question,
too, has been settled, as | suppose, by u
decision of the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States. For that tribunal has held,
on two several occasions, in two distinct
and disconnected cases, carefully argued
and fully considered, that such a limita-