The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-06-11

JdVnees ana eqAdty upon which the constitution user
Mr. MLISON Not the Missouri line but the line Of SO
deg. 80 min. extended to the Pacific. 5e
Mr. HAMILTON. voted for its extension TO the Paci-
&c not that thought originally right but settle and
adjust the dispute and the antagonist Of the Wimot
proyso which TO all the recently terri
tory II rejected by the North and the adjustment
measures Of 1850, which heartily supported the
suit fs5.#N Nu
Mr. Chairman, should be pleased If had the time to
reply at length 10 the arguments OF my colleague Mr.
FRANKLIN against this bill sorry that be Is not in
his seat whilst notice two regret sir, that he
by the course argument he pursued has surrendered the
whole constitutional question upon which the sayehoidB
States rely for the protection Of their property In ms
ectons the bill he has dwet much upon the law OF the
case and with all respect TO his argument and wt al
Difference his opinion and Judgment take the liberty 70
say that is likely TO confuse perpiex ana possibly
lead astray the public mind than to eyiscerate ana MAIN
tain the substantial truth and relation OF the SUBJECT he
objects TO the Badger proviso and because OF it. refuses
his support the bill He objects to II because II obe-
all law in these Territories and maintains that the
Shareholder never can go there either Dy the Ia" Oh
or the constitution of the United States.
Here is where my colleague has committed error
in confusing the public mind by asserting in the first place
that the Shareholder cannot gottereby the lac Of nature as
the right Of emigration depends upon that lac. would in
quire of my colleague who claimed to carry slavery
there by the law of nature n 1t is argument set up
by himself to be demolished by himself What the law
of nature2 II is underlined aUd an unsettled law II Is
confined the abstract rights of man. and the abstract
rights of property before society is formed Tor one or con-
trolls and regulates the other.
This law Of nature has nothing do with this subject
What hold by the OF natureI Is our properly
by descent by will by purchase held by the law Of
ture? No nature provides such law. The laws of
ture give fixed and continued right to property 1t
is yours whilst you possess il, and no longer
understand that there four cardinal kinds Of law
heaw the law Of nations and mu
nicpa law The law Of and the revealed law have
relation to individuals rather than to organized society
The of nations operates bWeen States and nations and
the municipal law wh States and nations No can
maintain that by the law of nature slaves be held
WHERE unless we consider the law of nature the law Of
power. But do know the laws of nations not only
recognise slavery but tolerate the making OF freemen into
slaves. We know that municipal laws, in this Upon
recognise and maintain property In slaves We know
more that the constitution of the United States is mu-
niep law and that it recognises slavery as an existing
institution and provides for the exercise OF It's power
and provides for its protection.
Acknowledge that by the laws of nature slaves not
held but by municipal law either express or Implied.
OF power; it may be instituted or regulated by positive
law it may be maintained by the power of individuals
communities it may exist by the acknowledged superb
ority of race another the esved asserting and
aociely uecmbng to this superiority And yet it is
fact that whenever and wherever there be this superiority
and this neriory Of races slavery will exist and slavery
will 60 unless absolutely prohibited by positive law. We
this the world over; see it in our own country
Why therefore does my honorable colleague indulge in
distractions about the law Of nature which defines moth
ing and upon which depends for any such right
What next2 My colleague in his effort to sustain this POI
son well to show that slavery could not go into
these Territories under this BILL cited to English
decisions which not only in conflict with themselves
but do not here apply But not confident OF the ecac Of
",
endeayor TO show by decision made in 1892 reported in
Washngtons Reports that Indians and negroes both
naturally entitled TO freedom and that they cond be made
slaves only by municipal taw and ne enorces this idea
by quoting the following remarks Of Mr. Wckham Of Vir
gina which is reported in the Of Butt against Rachel
I'd Henning 4 Mumford
'Mr. Writ contends that Indians naturally entitled to
feedomso negroes. But this does not prevent their
being slaves admit the right to make them slaves must
depend on positive institution Our right founded on the
act of assembly for the better of servants and
slaves"
This question in the decided in Washingtons Re
ports was whether Indians in this country slaves
The court properly decided not that there being law
making them slaves they freemen. So the argument
In that have quoted that there right
make slaves but by lar ask in all candor what has this
10 do with the ubiec2 Does the rgt 10 make sares of
eehn involve the right of the STAKEHOLDER go into these
Territories the common property Of the Union think
not Who claims the power, under the constitution, TO
make slaves OF either Indians free negroesP No
though in both these cases held that by law could
be done The mdng Of slaves is not the question and the
introduction Of il only TO pcrpe1 The question
H. whether the STAKEHOLDER of the States recognising
slaves property go with this property these Ter
tores or territory belonging TO the United States
under the constitution where there be prohibition Of it
That is the question. Nay, still more for they capno
20 there by virtue Of the constitution they there by
virtue OF their own power conferred by this BILL TO estab
lish their institutions this bin repeating the prohibit
ton Of 1920, which precludes them in either way
My honorable colleague seems 10 have forgotten in his
learned and interesting argument that slavery Is er
ing instuon-tha IL has ersng rohtsthat the consti-
tuition formed over and above IL and that ID In equal
degree and more with all the other interests rights
and property of the States Is entitled TO- and all
times receive equally the protection of this constitution
aud In aordng this protection, the constitution Is
qured 10 make slaves IL has such power II has only
protect the property Of individuals &C. recognised
the several States whenever II happens TO under its
power and jurisdiction
Ny colleague having proven 20 his satisfaction that by
the tc Of nature under this bin shareholders could not
90 into these Territories with their slave property next
makes effort to show that under the constitution they
have little right 20 there Want Of time will prevent
n
may be able TO remark that he conroyerts the constt
tiona right upon the ground FIRST If this right does
list poria Vgors by the constitution TO go upon the
domain, that IL equally applies 10 the domain
in the States well the Territories and which he ut
tery denies To this shall simply reply that there is the
greatest difference between States and Territories that
my colleague ought TO have rccolleced that in the States
persons and the rights Of persons protected and regu
lated BY State laws and that when State form
ed out Of common territory that its admission upon equal
terms with the other States surrender Of the
jurisdiction Of the United States that except far
where the constitution specifically enumeratos.
On the other hand the public domain organized Ter
ritores not lying without the limits Of State Is
der the full Jurisdiction Of the United States The power
Of the United States its domain within State has
exclusive relation TO II property, and not TO the dcon
nected and Nndependent rights Of persons
Still further 10 rebut As constitutional right Of protec
lion, be says in the next place that slavery Is muni
cpa law and Is dependent for its existence upon the Law
Of the particular place that those who that the constr
tuition carries slavery into the territory upon the
ground OF ITS being common property, ust further
tend that tOngres has right abolish II therein and
that the advocates OF this principle placed IN this
position, the whole question Is reduced to an absurdy
for If the constitution, propria ugort carries it there my
colleague arms that then neither Congress nor the peo-
Win in