The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-04-12

slavery involved According the less complex and
less Questionable OF these definitions the might be full
filled by absainng wholly from legislation the subject
OF slavery during the territorial condition Of the country
According TO the other definition Ii partition of the
rtoy between the saveholdng and veholdng pop
ulation were required in order to promote the
benefit and such partition could be carried into effect
in manner mutually beneficial the power OF making IL
might be exercised by the United States The territorial
settlers would in either be at liberty by their
sutons when framed TO regulate the subject of slavery
definitely for themselves During their territorial cond
ton unless mutually beneficial partition of the Territory
could be effected Congress has abstaned from legislative
interference with the subject
Many statesmen of the highest eminence have denied
many others have doubted-the constitutional power to
make an etiecual partition Of this character On the
other side OF the question: of distinguished states
men have always eontended that Congress has the cons
utonal power to exclude slavery absolutely from all the
Territories large number OF those who have recognised
the existence Of this supposed Of total exclusion
have however, admitted that the power could not be right
fully exercised concedng that fraudulent abuse Of such
power would be committed in any exercise Of II for the
benefit Of the proprietary Of portion of the
Territory TO the total exclusion of the propretors OF the
other portion. The reasoning would recognise the
immortality and Injustice of equal dsproportonal
partition. These abstract questions, upon which
statesmen have differed and may continue to differ But
practical truth, 1t will be shown before have concluded
remarks that act Of legislation has been passed
upon the principle of total exclusion of the people CT the
savehodng States from the enjoyment Of their property
in slaves within the Territories Until after the treaty
with Mexico in l848 there had been legislation
for the partial exclusion of this property upon any prnc
pie other than that of partition mutually beneficial An
apprehension in the minds of the people OF the savehod
ing States that departure from this practice had been
threatened by the legislation Of 1850 removed by the
salutary legislation Of 1854, which happily queted their
minds upon the subject. ..@.a #..... #ns
In matters Of statesmanahip it is often unwse to play the
part OF mere lawyers We should Of course violate
the law But the question of right often quite ndepend
ent Of that of legal po~r It by no means true that
every power which be lay exercised may be right
fully exercised. There is nothing in the constitution to
prevent the government of the United States from wrong
fully exercising many most perncious powers Their ex
ercse, against the spirit of the constitution might be
within the scope OF the powers which the constitution it
self coners. Thus standing army of million Of
be raised under act of Congress in time of peace
and If the soldiers be not quarered the inhabitants the
act would be lawful under the constitution yet it would
be manesty against the spirit of the constitution No
lawyer would question its validity but an honest sates-
would revolt at Its inquity and might counsel
luton itself preferable to submission So il look
merely to decisions of the Supreme Court of the United
States corporate body Of SPECTATORS under the of
bank may be constituted by Congress the fiscal agents
Of government But American statesmen of the
present day-whateyer may be his opinion on the lc-
gal question ncontends that the fiscal power of the
State can be righyully placed, in this manner, for a
number of years, beyond the control of those organs
of government whose authority is dependent upon the
exercise of the elective franchise in the several States
and whose functions determined by the constitution
These examples, which might be multiplied suffice to show
the nconcusveness of the general reasoning of those who
assume that whatever is legal is therefore, necessarily,
rghtfu in moral political point of view and of the
reasoning in particular of those who conceving the total
exclusion of slaves from the Territories be lawful
that such exclusion Is therefore, necessarily righu
Before concluding my remarks hope 10 show that such
total exclusion would not only be immoral and unjust but
would, likewise in legal sense, be unconstitutional
for the present this demonstration because il
be made incidentally during the historical review of the
1 past legislation which propose to present
Before entering upon these historical details desire 10
state succncy the reasoning upon which many statesmen
who think the constitutional power of Congress the
Territories limited by the trust under which they held
for the benefit of the several States neverthe
dy;5.
Territories between the people of The nonavehodng and
those of the saveholdng states 10 consistent with and
authorized by, this trust
Their argument has been that territorial possessions
owned in common by private or by public proprieors
may be enjoyed for their and mutual benefit in
either of two modes firstly may be held In common and
uodvided with equal participation by every in
all the parts secondly may be justly and equitaby dyi
i ded by a partition Some who, proessedly, were strict
consructiOnisis stated the question to be- primarily
benefit they could be enjoyed In without ela-
tive II absolute neessy Of making partition.
WIS they said smen table truth but truth which no
could venture deny, that the savehodng and the
nonsaveholdng population could not coeyist convenient
y, IL at ALL under one and the same local government
Upon this allegation they based their argument that with
out partition there could be practical equal psrticpa
ton ID the BENEFITS dervabe from our ownership Of these
| territorial dependencies.
ON the one hand tho Iuoompatbity Of any prosperous
coexsence OF the two kinds Of population under the
local government fully acknowledged before
stituton framed and at the time Of its formation.
must contnue 10 be Acknowledged until after the condition
OF the Territories with reference this question shall
bee permanently determined and placed beyond the
Of possible congressional action These considerations
Of relative necessity 20 very far 70 sustan the argument In
favor fan Inherent power IN the general government
make partition OF the territorial dependencies,
On the other hand In support OF the opposing argument
II has been urged that according to sound political rules
OF construction Of the constitution, power not expressly
given cannot from any relative absolute necessity
be implied and that this, power arising from implica
/ tiou alone, must, therefore, be excluded.
BY the legislation Of Congress in 1850 and 1854 the
question Is rendered practically obsolete except lis In
yestgation may shed light Historically upon prior cons
tutiona provisions eud legislative ensctmens recu
TO the subject is however Indispensable in every
stage Of this historical investigation.
| The difficulty which such partition might be expected
to remove occurred upon the adoption Of the constitution
Of the United States. IL remeded will hereafter
n chow by Of partition made may say coten
pqrqne9psly With the adoption Of the constitution After
the lapse Of nearly the third OF century the difficulty
CURED TO the territory ceded by France After eontro
yersal agitation, attempt made 10 remedy u by
4 means Of partition Of this territory This par.
ton peculiar IN s character which will have occa
quarter Of century, Ia order 10 prevent like difficulty
from occurring In the Of Texas there exen
son pf the supposed principle Of the former partition The
principle Of these aets clearly that each successive
acquisition Of territory shoud DO shared with cose
approximation to equal proportional benefit the differ
ent sections OF tho Union might under the crcun
! stances, be practicable,
The mode In which the partitions had been successivey
made always In form aud In effect beneficial the
nonslavehoding States From portion Of the Terri
tory slavery in each case by the language Of The
excluded absolutely while slavery the other
portion, to be excluded from IL its inhabitants nigh
i consiudonally determine,
Mexicen an attennt vvas