The daily union., 1854-02-09

thus ganized as necessary consequence it will leave
the question wholly unsettled 80 far as those Territories
prior 10 their admission into the Union as
Slaes And desire 10 call The attention OF the Senate
TO The langage OF the proyso order 10 show what It's
meaning really was. | will read it
"And such States may be formed onl Of that portion
tude, commonly known the M,ssoad Compromise lne
shall be into the Unon with without slavery,
An a sae SAFE or sa,e as .h be iamed Out Of said
lenory north OF said Missouri Compromise line, slavery
Involuntary sefvode (except ior crmes) shah DC pro
hibed"
Tae ACT OF 1850. which organizes the Territory OF New
Mexico, has this proviso
"Pre,ded That nothing herein contained shall be Goa,
ar,lcle OF the second section OF ,nt resolution Tor
nsxiug Texas the Unted States, approved March l.
be iomed OF the State Of Texas. OF otherwise
VIVA, is the prohibition which is made in this resolu-
on annexng Texas 10 the United States 10 what does
apply! Does il apply TO Territories, to the States 10
De formed from tue Terioresl The language is clear If
you TO judge OF The meaning OF Congress BY the Ian
guage employed TO express IT. you can only understand
that the intention OF Congress 10 prohibit slavery
in The States to be formed from such Territories
nofth of the line OF SO deg 80 min and within the
boundaries OF Texas. And if there be any meaning at
all in The proviso OF Mr.. Mason it is declaration that
this prob upon the States formed from such Ter
ritory shall not be mpaired
The question which desire TO present TO the consid
oogy OF the provlso contained in the Texas resolution
II Isl that slavery within the limits OF the States herea
ter be formed from this Territory north OF SO deg 30
mn shall be forever prohibited Is this proh upon
the people living the Territories. or is it prohibition
upon the people living the States after they shall have
been formed from the rerorrs9 Sir, does not reach
people in the Territory but only reaches them after
the Territory to by the organization Of Slate
government. and has taken It's position among the States
OF this coniederacy.
therefore wish to presen, to the consideration of The
Senate, whether The proviso is therefore utterly
void; whether il does not strike at State sovereignty;
whether 1t does moi ske down The rights OF the people
II provso which degrades sovereign Stale, when
she asks 10 be placed equality with The other
Sales OF the Union What, sir, 10 Stale Do you
understand il meaning merely corporate body
formed with view TO establish political institutions for
the protection OF life and property, Is that all that Is
cluded in the constitutional sen-e OF that term No
State, under the constitution OF the United States
sovereignty which belong each aad every other State
within the limits OF this great coDfederacy II has the
sane power over every subject within the sphere OF
its legitimate jurisdiction which II would have had if
existence had been coeva with that of the general
government itself Ii has The powers with New
Hampshire, with Massachusetts, New York, Kentucky,
any other Stale OF The Union What then, ~ the force
oil this prohibition contained in the Texas resolution and
which gentlemen insist upoa prohibiting toe people OF
the South from taking their slaves within the limits of
terrtorys Is declaration that the people OF
severe ga Stale shall have the right 10 essb sh s!a-
very or not, they may think proper. Can IL be
defsood TO yhing less than thai Surely other
Interpretation can be IL Theo, ask has The gen
era government the power place restriction upon The
people OF Stale, whether formed from The territory
within the limits OF Texas. or wherever that Slate
nay De, which shall deear them from determining
Tor themselves whether they will establish slavery with
their borders not' To my mind It is perfectly clear
thai prohibition Unconstitutional Massachusetts
may declare that slavery may exist with the limits OF
that State New York, any other State where does
not exist, may declare that hsnceiorth II shall exist
And the people OF State where slavery now already
iss the power 10 declare that shall not exist
rnis il power which may be rgh,iGlly and propsry
exercised sy any Stale within the limits OF the Union
Whsn this conederaey was formed. there was scarcely
State within The limits OF the Union where slavery did
not exist VIVA, became OF slavery IN the northern
Staiesi Was 1t abolished BY the federal government ?
No, wherever has been abolished, il has hesn by
the action OF the governments OF The States. ,n the exer
cise Of their legitimate power TO declare that should not
exis, within their limits Aad II they possess that pow
er, surely cannot be supposed that the same powe, Is
vested IN the Congress OF the DATED States; for that
would he disturb power clearly secured to the States
by the constitution OF The country That The power IS vest
Ell in The Sae- the legislation oi the States has clearly
and fully established. They abolished slavery by declaring
that should not exist within Their limits and they
again, they think proper establish slavery by declaring
that may exs'. To suppose that Congress has the
power say that slavery shall no, exist 10 New York.
Kentucky, 10 any State OF the Union, would involve
monsfous absudiiy Tor Congress might TO day declare
that slavery shall not exist within the limits OF State
and the people OF the mig morrow declare that
IL may exist; aud here would arse at coofcl Of
sovereignty The most fearful consequences might
10 The whole county II such an Interpretation could
be giyen to the constitution OF the United States.
Then, the act passed here lay prohibition upon the
people OF Stale formed out OF Tue territory OF Texas,
ia thai respect an unconstitutional act Ii is utterly
void II has obligatory force Whatever upon the peo
pie living within the limits oil such State. This con-
strucon seems 10 me the only construction which can
be gwen to H. SO FAR as regards thr Territory the Ian
guage ot the act excludes the idea thar there any pro
hibi ion al all And II il intended 10 prohibit its
existence il is utterly void, and therefore prohibition
AT all How, then. is the whole question left by the ac
on of 1850 Even IL should be mslak en- 10 thus con-
situcton there another provision 10 the act TO which
wish to cali attention. which dec that people OF
the States to be formed out o that territory may OF may
MOI have slavery their representatives. shall determine
II II perfectly clesr them that lar regards a
that territory, the people OF the States may decide for
themselves | viii read the proviso far as II applies
10 this Case
"And yrovtded fnrhsr, Taat when admitted State
tho ssid Territory % auy portion o the same snail be
constitution rasy prescribe AZ the time Of their admission
Their, can be no language clearer than that. Even
admitting hat the proviso the Texas resolution ls
constitutional. here proyso which gives to the people
OF The Slaes the right elect whether they will or will
not have slavery the time OF their admission into the
Union Can il be doubled then. tnat 1t was The Inlen
uon of those who framed the compromise measures that
slavery should or should exist, the people Of each
the States sbond determine. within the niis oi this
whole country The only way 10 reconcile the apparent
between the resolution oil lst3 ana the act
Of 1850 to apply the provso in the resolution admit
ting exas to the territory within the limits o Texas as
defined by the ac, Of 1850 II you do that there IA no
contradiction. II you do mol, the provlso which Lave
ss read is opposed and Inconsistent with the rfovso
which declares that slavery shall not exist wihn the
limits of territory OF Texas norih OF ~ deg 80 min
or the limits States fomed out OF that territory ms
Then, ihe only far construction which can
be Rivcnto the two acts.
Il am correct IN tue view have taken, you settle
this q,eson You declare toe right Of The people within
sofo "a lpf