Washington telegraph., 1856-06-11
From the Memphis Bulletin
Slavery and the Missouri Compromise

fJrtbcoming book on Kansas, in which
the history Of its acquisition and settlement.
and the character Of Its soil, climate and
production, are fully and authenticalIy de-
veICped, is in course of preparation by a
gentleman of this city, and wall be publish
ed in the course of the summer 1t Is from
the pen OF Preston Hay, Esq. a member of
the legal profession, for many years resi-
dent in Tennessee. and a gentleman in ev-
cry way qualified. both BY intellectual cult
vation and long personal observation and
inquiry on the subjects he treats, for the
tax lie has undertaken. The following ex-
tract from the third chapter presents a
view Of the slavery question and the Mis-
sCuri Compromise which is at once striking
and irrcfragible. We commend i; to the at
tentiOn of those of our political readers who.
in this Kansas controversy, desire 10 plant
themselves upon ground solid and impreg
uatle as the Constitution itself.
In Congress and in other public assem-
ilies, the question has been discussed until
It has become almost threadbare, and there
IS no disposition to renew 1t here. 1t may
be auliss, however TO call attention to what
looks ike a remarkable oversight of the
statesmen who framed the Missouri Compro-
fgi-e. not less than those who entered tue
Nebraska Kansas law. 1t is that they ap-
pear all to have been obliyious of the terms
upon which the Territories Ill question were
acquired by the United States from France.
One OF the articles of the treaty of cessIUu
provides that the inhabitan,s of the Terri-
tory should continue in the enjoyment of all
the rights Of property and person which
they had and held under TIE French govern
meut 1t Is indiSputable that the right to
hold slaves in any part of the ceded country
did exist, and was enjoyed By the people OF
Louisiana. al. and prior IA the time OF ma
king the treaty There is Z clause in the
Constitution of the United States which de-
cIares that it (the COn>tiiution) aud treaties
made under it, shall be the supreme law of
ihe land Now, as it will not be pretended
that Congress has power to repeal provi-
sou Of the Constitution, no more can it be
claimed that it has power to annul the pro-
visions o. treaty which that instrument puts
upon an equal footing with Itself. Neither
can a treaty which. like that in question
carries with 1t from generation to generation
the vested rights OF individuals. be in any
way impaired by The lapse of time.
IF there be soundneSs in this view of
the matter, it follows of cou-Se, that the
whole country constituting inc Louisiana
purchase. came into the United States as
territory III which slavery could lawfully
exist, and in which our government guaran-
ties its ri eht to exist in perpetuity. 1t fur
,her follows that the Efforts to set limits TO
It's extension by the enactment of the Mis-
souri, Compromise measure, was an uuau-
thorized assumption of power. inasmuch as
it undertook TO annul, on the part of Con-
gress. treaty stipulation which was as OBJ
ligaiory on that body as the Constitution
itself Had it been the purpose of our
Government to put a restraint upon the ex-
tension of slavery within the limits of the
acquired Territory, 1t was IN the power Of
the Senate to withhold its approval of the
treaty altogether, or at least until so modi-
fed as to meet It's views in that respect
And the House of Representatives, when
called upon to vote the large appropriation
requisite for carrying the treaty into effect.
could have insisted upon having it so Dodi-
fed as 10 set bounds to slavery, or let it fall
70 the ground for want of the means of ex~
ecuting it. Neither department of the gov
eminent did anything of the kind and it
is respectfully submitted that thenceforth
they were e<toPped, both in law and justice.
and fer all time TO come. from setting up
any claims inc nsi>tent with their action
upon that treaty 1t viii be observed that
this has nothing to 90 with the general ques-
ton Of the power of Congress to lesisiate
upon the subject of slavery in Territories
to which no treaty stipulations apply As
respects New Mexico and Utah, which are
ours by treaty with Old Mexico, slavery did
not legally exist in them at the time of their
acquisition; it received no guaranty by the
terms Of the treaty, and it may be conced-
cd without disparagement TO the arguments
here employed, that Congress. may, in its
discretion. authorize or forbid slavery there.
The same may be said of the Territories of
Washington and Oregon, which came in
possession of the United States by prior dis
covery and occupation. But with regard to
the whole vast region acquired by the Lou
lsiaBa purchase. that it has always been the
right Of the inhabitants to carry slaves into
every part of it, and hold them there, an
act to the contrary notwithstanding, is a de-
monstrable truth
1T would seem, therefore, that the claim
of the chief actors in the passage of the
Nebraska-kansas act-that Of having es-
tablished principle whereby the people of
the Territories were left at liberty to frame
their own insiitutiOns-is not well founded.
or at least, is No. properly stated. Ii, in
stead of repealing the Missouri Compromise
IN express terms, and thereby according to
Its validity during It's existence, they had
pronounced il nullity from the beginning,
as an assumption of power not belonging to
Congress, because subversive OF power
greater than Its own, and tie people of the
territories would at once have been restor
ed to the exercise of the rights secured to
Them BY treaty. Those rights are simply
such as pertain to American citizenship,
and among them, that of moulding instiiu-