Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1854-03-31
IN thew now. when they saw this is merely


own pretentons for love of country, yield
their support TO proposition like this--a
proposition most carefully calculated to ex-
cite all the angry feelings that can be exist
ed m the bosoms of northern men. Sir, this
was a compact. Will they no, Weld some
thing for good faithf II is demonstrated
here that the South received its consioera-
ton long ago. viii the free States feel
nothing at being robbed of their portion; 1t
1t is shown, that slavery has gained great
advantages from this new Territory will
you take away all the advantages you a
greed some thirty years ago that freedom
should receive from it,
The Constitution was not formed by the
States as States. 1t was formed by the
people of the United States, as | have al
ways understood it. | am not choice. as
stated in the use Of language and do not
care whether gentlemen admit the word
compact TO be applicable or not. | mean
by that the proposition that they made them
selves aud enforced by the aud of northern
votes those who voted Tor 1t from the North
being pledged TO 20 home and defend it be.
fore their people, on the ground that they
had received this consideration for It. That
is The doctrine aud no other, that have heard
and is all wish 10 say IN reference to that
point.
hope if there is agiation ifthere is ex-
element; If you choose 10 call It so; If
there is sicky setimen,alty. it you Ike that
better, IN the free States from this time Tor
ward, you will Just cast your eyes back to
those who made it, started it, started {, and
gave occasion for II. If you hear of cavll-
ngs at the North, coupled with dendncia-
tons Of slavery at the South, recollect the
state of quiet from which you brought II
forth 1t is not enough to tell the people Of
the free states that this was rendered by the
North TO the South. We do not admit the
authority OF the Senator making Il, though
he may occupy most eminent position, to
speak for the North. tie has no more au-
thority than have. At any rate, we repu
date him as acting for US in our part Of the
country. | can answer for my own State.
With all the respect that the people Of my
State NAV have for his character and posi-
ton, he cannot claim for him, or for any 9th
er gentlemen from the North who act with
him, that he speaks for us, except 50 far as
his own State is concerned. They cannot
claim for him that be has any right to ten
der from the North this release. And allow
me to say, that | do not understand that
principle of honor, although 1t seems to be-
well understood here, which allows that what
cannot honorably be taken directly, can be
grasped with honor when offered by another
having no authority to give it. here may
be some very nice distinctions In the minds
OF gentlemen. They may be able 10 recon
Gle the difficulty. They could not 1t seems,
move in this matter; they could not under
take 10 bring 1t up in any shape or form but
I iuasmuch as the proposition has come here
they vii. not wait TO see whether II is au-
{ thorized by those who alone are competent
/ TO make 1t, but will take it at once and settle
that question afterwards sir | do not un
derstand such principle.
/ Sir, what are the particular grounds ofex-
cuse for the Introduction Of this troub lesome
question at the present time Mark you,
no practical result is expected from It. No
change Of position is to arise from It. Moth
I ing Is to come out of il at al ercept the re-
/ peal of this restriction in the act for the ad-
mission of Missouri. That is all, and that
all is nothing, say southern gentlemen Why
then, Is to be dones Because, say several
Senators, that restriction is unconstitutional
But upon this point there is a difference OF
opinion among themselves. | understand
my honorable friend from North Carolina
Mr.. Badger to say-and have great re-
spect for his opinion as a lawyer-iha, he has
no doubt Of the constitutionalty of that re-
strction. understand other southern gen.
tlemen to affirm its unconstitutionality.
But ii Is singular, that in the history OF
this question, the unconsttutionality OF this
restriction lay dormant in the minds Of south
ar lemon for
1t is very singular that It lay long enough
for them to avail themselves Of the admls-
sion OF Missouri as State, Of Arkansas IS a
State, and of Texas as state When the
latter question came up in tins Senate, not
the first man that | know OF, or ever heard
OF, breathed the idea, or suggested II Ia any
way, that q restriction thus fixed and deter
mined was unconstitutional. Why did not
that objection arise then? What new light
has been shed upon the country: When
did II come? Did 1t present itself at any
time before slavery was ready-havng Sc
cured all Of It at first clalmed-,o grasp all
the remaining territory. How far Is tins to
go? Are we next to remove the restriction
IN the resolution admitting Texas, as and Is
all new territory hereafter to be acquired to
be subject to no restriction think the
country VIII be led to inquire what Is to be
the effect Of this continued increase OF slave
States Gentlemen talk OF the balance OF
power having been secured to the free
States. 1t strikes me that there will be
some little power secured to the South, or
TO the slave States. But upon this question
of constitutionahly we have had an argu-
ment from the learned and honorable Sena
tor from Connecticut, Mr. Toucey lie
was not content with the views taken by
other gentlemen, but has argued the matter
IN full as lawyer. Allow me to say, sir, that
upon that question never had the least
doubt | can give a reason for il. Sir, IN
my early reading there was such thing
found as sovereignty. The Senator from
Michigan has given us an argument on the
subject Of this constitutional power of Con.
gress to prohibit slavery in the new Terrific
/ rles.
acknowledge the very high authority Of
the honorable Senator but | want to ask
again, and gentlemen may answer it or not,
whether there is or is not such a thing as
sovereignty, the power to command, and the
power 10 make laws? 1t strikes me that
there is. Well, ii such thing existed over
this territory was ceded to the United States
Of America, did or did not the sovereignty
pass with the territory 1t ceased IN France.
Dad II become extinct or did II live and pass
to the United States If it passed to the
United States, 1t passed TO the people of the
United States. Sovereignty-wha is not
/ granted by the CONSTITUTIONS IN the PEG
/ pie. All sovereignty with US is in the peo-
/ pie. They parted with none, except in the
form Of the Constitution. If existed in the
people, TO whom do the people delegate that
sovereignty Why, sir, they delegate it
TO the officers of the Constitution, whom the
Constitution made to the Congress of the
United States. What sovereignty they
may have, so far as they did act upon the
subject, was delegated TO the COM ress of
the United states. Is not this particular
subject provided for the Constitution? Is
nothing said about territories in the Consti-
traon DO we not find them mentioned
there! | believe we do. | think we find
Ii SAID that Congress shall have the power to
make all neediul rules and regulations re-
gardln9 the territories What does tho av