New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-02-08
stdrrRy IN THE NORTH WEsr.
DANIEL, WEBSTER ON THE MISSOURI CON.
Pr,lNfSB


Boston. in 1919 1t is entitled \ Memorial u ia'
Congress Of the United States ON the subject OF -
sraning the increase of Slavery in new states 70 De- 81
United into the Union prepared in pursuance OF aVoto
Of the inhabitants OF Boston aud y,nity assembled
at the StateHouse the Sd OF De .ember, ID 1912"
The memorial is signed by Daniel Webster, George
Blake Josiah Quincy. James T. Austin and John Gal
ison As everything relating to this subject from the
eminent men Of thecountTy is Just now interesting we
have exhuu ell this pamphlet and lay before our read
ers the following extracts from it, We 10 not know Of
ANYBODY who in arguing the Slavery question has gone
much further than Mr. Webster in what follows:
MEMORIAL
r a. SolGe end House o. rcsdr- y ~ Uaifef stss
rcros osserttce
Tie undersigned, Inhabitants of Boston and i;s Vi
cnity, beg leave most especially and hHmb 70 repre-
sent: That the question ii the Introduction OF Slavery
Into tie new States 20 lie formed on the west side OF the
Mississippi River appears 70 them to be question of
last importance to the future welfare Of the United
States Ii tie progress Of this great evil is ever to be
arrested Il 10 tie undersigned that this Is the
tine 10 arrest IT, false step taken now cannot be re-
traced aid IL appears 70 Ms that the hfppness OF m
born millions rests on tie measures which Congress
nay on this occasion adopt Considering this as no
local QUestion nor question TO be decided by ten
p0rarv expcdncy. but as involving great interests OF
tie whole of the United States and affecting deeply
and essentially those objects Of common de ense general
welfare and the perpotuati0n oil the blessings Of liberty
f which the Constitution itself was formed, We have
presumed in this way To offer our sentiments and eN-
press wishes to the National legislature Aui -
various have been suggested against prohibiting
Slavery in the Statos5 may perhaps be permitted 20
Us 70 state reasons both iOr believing tul Congress
possesses the constitutional power 70 make such pro-
hbtcn a condition. On the admission OF a new Safe
into tie Union, and that is just and proper that tAey
Should exercise that power.
And IN the nrs. place, g. 70 the oonsuutonl au-
tbority of Congress Tie Constitution Of the United
States has declared that the Congress shall have
power TO dispose of and make all necdu rules and
regulations respecting the TERRITORY other property
belonging 10 the United States and nothing IN TINS
Constitution shall be- 80 construed a. 90 prJutce
tie claims of the United States of any particular
State II is very well known that the SAVING in this
clause Of the claims of any particular State was de-
signed 10 apply 70 claims by the then existing Sta.cs
OF territory which was also claimed by the United
States their own property. IL has, therefore no
bearing On tie present question The power. then, OF
Couaicss over It's own territories is b. the very terms
of lie Constitutions unlimited. II may make sll need
ful rules and regulations, which Of course include
nlsuch regulations as its own views OF policy or eN-
pediency shall from time TO time dictate. H. there
fore in its judi mcut 1t be needul tor the benefit
OF d territory enact prohibition oi Slavery, 1t
would to lie much within its power of leglsla
tion as any other act Of local policy Its sovereignty
being complete and universal as to the territory 1t
over ~ Inc ample JulisuicllUu III
every respect Ii possesses in this view all the author
il, which any State Legislature possesses over Its own
territory ind ii any State Legislature may, in its
discretion, abolish prohibit Slavery within its own
limits, in virtue of its general legislative authority or
tie sant reason Congress also may exercise the Ike
authority over its own territories And that STATE
Legislature, unless restrained By some constitutional
provision, may do. is inquest enable, and has been
established by general practice
The creation OF Few state is, in effect compact
between Congress and the inhabitants OF the proposed
STATE CONGRESS wonl not probably claim the power
Of compelling the inhabitants of Missouri to form
Constitution of their own, and come into the Union a.
State. Ii is as plain that the inhabitants OF mat
Territory have right 20 admission into the Union as
State without tie consent of Congress. y either par
= il bound to form this connection. IL can be formed
only by the consent Of both What then, prevents
Coress as ot tie STIMULATING parties, to propose
III. terms Aud if the other party assents to these
terms Why do they not etiectuay bind both parties
Or if the inhabitants of the Territory do not choose to
accept the proposed terms, but prefer to remain un
der a Territorial Government, has Congress deprived
them If any right, subjected them to any restraint
which, in IFS discretion il had not authority to do II
the admission of States be not the discretionary
exercise Of a constitutional power, but in all
imperative duty how is it to be performed II the
Constitution means that Congress shat admit new
States does mean that Congress shall 10 this on eve
" al p.icaton and under all circumstances Or II
this construction cannot be admitted and II It must be
conceded that Congress must in some respect exercise
its discretion ON the admi siun OF new States how IS 1t
to be shown that that discretion may not be exercised
in regard to this subject well AZ ID regard 30 others
The Constitution declares thet tie migration or I'M
poratiCn Of such persons as any ~ The ates H01 e.
sfipg, shall think proper TO admit shall not be promo
ted by tie Ccngress, prior to tie year lS9SF IL Is
most mauiicst that tie Constitution does contemplate
in the very terms of this clause that Congress pos
fesfes tie authority to prohibit the migration orimport
alton Of slaves; for it limits the exercise o. TINS au
ttority for specific period OF time leaving 1t % ITS
full operation ever aerward. Aud TINS power seems
necessarily included in the authority which belongs 10
Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations
and GmOrg The sererQi rGies No person has ever
doubted that tie prohibition of the foreign slave trade
was completely within the authority o Congress since
tie year ISIS. And Why! Certainly only because It IS
embraced In the tuiatOH oil fJTeigH commerce; ant
90 il nay for the Ii sc reason be prohibited aInce
lat nerOd between the States. Commerce IN slaves,
since tie wear cC-, being much subject to the reg
uaton OF Congress ANY other commerce, II 10 should
see ft 10 enact that slave should ever be sod rom
one State to another it is not perceived how ts c)na
tutioEal re ht to make such provision could be ques
toned Ii would seem to be too plain TO be ques-
toned tia. Congress did possess the power before the
year ~ to prohibit the migration or Importation 81
slaves into the territories (and in point OF act eIer
cised that pOwer) well as into any rem ciaies AMI
that il. authority after that year, might be as fully ex-
ercsed to prevent tie migration or importation osayes
into any OF the old States. And II 10 may prohblt ne"
states from importing slaves il may surely as we
Lnmbly submit make il a condition Of the admission
of such States into the Union, that they shall never IN
rort them In relation, too, % its own Territories,
Iouoress Dosspsses more extensive authority, AMI
nav in various other ways effect the object ltmigt
for example make il 40 express condition Of ia grants
Of the soil that is owners shall never hold slaves and
thus prevent the POSSESSION OF slaves ron ever OeNS
con ec.ed with the ownership Of the soil
As corroborative Of the views which have been al
ree5y suggested the nemoralists would respectfully
c1 he atten;icn Congress 10 the history OF the n
ti legislation under the Confederation as well a. IN