The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-30
CITY OF WASHINGTON, TUESDAY MORNING MAY 80 Is

1850 does any one think il would be possible for the
southern people 10 enter into that unfair and unequal
tract 2 Would any northern ask il I? Would any
have the hardihood TO propose that should apply
the principle Of diyson-of unfair and unequal division
portion of the territory and suffer the TO be
ganized upon wholly different prnepleand that too,
principle by the operation Of which the northern people
may, and probably wii acquire the whole Well, SIR,
If that assumed compact presented at this day would be
unreasonable and unfair II il would be in utter conflict
with the principle adopted in later times, how any
man contend that the act Of 1920 should control
in the performance Of duty which is imperatye-the
duty OF organizing the Territories described IN the present
bill he
But il argued that the compromise measures Of 1850
left the restriction the Louisiana Territory in full force
In certain sense, this Is true, Technically, the act Of
1920 remains unaered. Bn il cannot be denied that
wholly different and inconsistent principle adopted in
s's 6s e ss eS JS1 q 1870
ask upon what ground OF political WISDOM OF
sense we apply principle in the organization of
ierent and conflicting to the Territories of Utah and
New Mexco2 IN the you allow TO the people
restrained power to mould and form their institutions
according TO their free will preparatory to the esab
ishment OF State government in the other you propose
to continue in force odious restriction which deprves
the people of that power You mete out different
ure OF freedom TO the two communities and in doing
you disregard fundamental principle of republican gov
ernment viz: that which requires laws to be general and
uniform not partial and special Sir every consideration
onall require that should disregard the restriction
OF 1920 and from path in the performance
OF our duty in organizing any and every Territory Of the
But sir hasten to another point Whatever may have
been the views of statesmen in lS20 and from that time
down to 1880 believe the conviction at the present day is
almost universal among the southern people that the
visions of the Missouri act restricting slavery not
within the constitutional powers of the federal
think my honorable colleague Mr. ETHERDGE Twill find
this sentiment prevailing that part Of his district which
was formerly part of my have frequently argued to
this effect before that highly respectable and intelligent peo
pie, and do not think found whig opponent who
took issue with upon the point In truth the southern
people, under the constran OF imminent danger imposing
condition of almost absolute necessity, yielded to the Mis-
souri, restriction concession n the spirit of beality
and conciliaton they submitted to violation of their
rights As they alone were to be affected by it in Ae
spirit OF noble patriotism they consented to waive their
constitutional privilege and agreed to division of terri
tory not complaining that the dvisionitse was une
quail and unfair.
Mr.. SIMMONS. win the gentleman allow me to ask
Mr.. STANTON Certainly
Mr.. SIMMONS. The gentleman talks about equality and
inequality of division Now supposng that territory to
be held and owned in common by the whole nation, and
suppose the North had twice the population of the South
should the division be equal exactly equal in area? Should
not the division be in proportion TO the growth of the pop
Mr.. STANTON. That is very true. ! acknowledge the
correctness and force of the genteman proposition and
accordingly in 1850 in fact from 1913 to 1885, southern
statesmen in this House and in the otherMr Calhoun HIM
self among the restofered to extend the line of 36 deg
80 min. to the Pacific ocean, which would have given to
the northern people the lions share Of that territory and
left fragment which worthless except in the
preservation of principle.
Sir have always been willing to submit TO any thing
which had show OF fairness without measuring in nicely
balanced scales whether il precisely equal not We
offered to give you more far more than your proportion
ate population justified you in claiming But you rejected
it, and you insist upon having the whole of Nebras-
ka and Kansas and large share of the Mexican terrific
res YOU get by of Mexican laws and popular
sovereignty am not disposed to admit quite much as
this Hr
was about to submit remarks upon the question
of unconsdtutionay. do not propose to do than
present view Of the subject which have not heard
from any other gentleman during this debate was alb
sent however during much OF the discussion and may
be mistaken in supposng that the dea has not been sug
| gested by others =
assume in the first place as the basis Of my argument
and think il will be conceded by everybody as a una-
mental prncplethat Congress cannot prohibit slavery in
State. If any has denied this doctrine have
not yet learned the fact Congress has power under the
constitution, admit States but when admitted
they become members Of the Union according the terms
and conditions provided in the constitution itself No
Others be imposed by any agreement compact treaty,
or other device whatever The States old per-
fecty equal in the eye OF the constitution and no resc-
ton be applied by Congress any of them which
does not equally apply to all the others The agreement
of the State itself could not abrdge its rights member
Of the Union for it s evident that If this device could be
adopted the State would not be in the Union by virtue Of
the constitution but by virtue of something different and
inconsistent with it. In other words constitution
would be made by agreement between the parties and
fundamental laws would be altered without pursuing the
mode of amendment prescribed in the constitution itself
Conceivng this doctrine TO be settled beyond dispute
cavl ask in the second place by what the
Territories Of the United States held and by what author
ity organized into territorial governmen,s2 Are they
held and governed colonies Is there any author
iy in the constitution to hold them by any such ten
ure, and to govern them inferior and dependent
provinces with rights privileges except such
choose arbitrarily TO coner2 answer that the very
ture Of institutions, whole history, and all
legislation, well every tradition upon which lib
critics founded all unite TO deny that any such dcspoc
power exists in free government 1t doubt
u question in the minds Of Mr. Jefferson and others Of his
day whether the constitution authorized the acquisition of
territory nll But there never was any doubt
TO the only legitimate purposes for which additions
could be made TO limits If such additions admit
tednot be held colonies and dependent provinces
but eventually TO be erected into sovereign States and
such admitted into the Union with the full and equal
position of inehoae Staetat is say Its destiny
to become State and not to remain In colonial yassalage
and dependence II Is only with view Of fauthorzng
couragng and protecting settlement and finally promo
ting the formation of republican States that Congress has
power organize territorial governments We very gem
orally reject that derivation OF power which comes from
the clause authorizing Congress make ncedfu rules
and regulations respecting the Territories and other prop
ertyn We govern the Territories the ground Of
sty inseparabe from the power Of acquisition But this
necessity To govern is with view 10 q particular end and
especially in subordinaon to the constitutional Limitation
Of powers
But If should be wrong in arguing that Congress has
power to hold Territories except with view to creating
States the fact is nevertheless beyond dispute that such Is
avowed purpose in all the territorial organizations
have made II is the glory Of institutions the
very flower and perfection of cherished liberties that
almost annually giving birth 10 new States, and
extending the of freedom with noble and unsehsh