Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-05-23
/; but We should not have ct Kansas at all under


being north Of the Missouri compromis- line. Be-
Sides while New Mexico has legislated in our favor,
and the same thing, believe, is true Of Utah ~
80 Mr.. Green. I wish to correct the Senator in q
matter of fact Utah has not passed any law pro-
tecting slavery. They have an apprentice system,
which expires in very short time ,sr.e.
Mr. Clingman. am obliged to the gentleman
for the suggestion; but consider the fact with ref
erence to Utah mmaeral, because it lies on table
land several thousand feet above the sea, very far
north reaching up to the forty second parallel and
having very cold climate Surely, the Senator
does not deny the fact that far as New Mexico is
concerned, we have got everything we desire, and
that it covers more territory than we claimed in
1850. I was about to say, though, that even IN
Kansas slave property was protected by the Terri
toral legislature for several years, but lately they
have legslated against it. believe that but for
the extraordinary excitement which grew up out
of the repeal of the Missouri restriction the Territory
Of Kansas would have legslated adversely to us
but all know that great crowd were sent in there
from the North. with extreme anti-savery views,
and the result of the excitement there has been leg
islaton against us; but we are no worse off in that
respect than # we had never repealed the restriction
and we are much better off far as the Territory
of New Mexico is concerned by adopting non-inter-
vention.
Mr.. Crittenden Will the gentleman give way to
motion to adjourn.
Mr.. Clngman As it is late, if there is no OBJ
lection to the question going until to- morrow,
it will be more agreeable to me.
Mr. Crittenden. I move that the Senate adjourn.
The motion was agreed to and the Senate ad-
journed
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1860.
Mr.. President l hope shall not find it necessa-
nv to occupy much of the time of the Senate. When
I commenced last evening thought should he able
to conclude very soon but finding that the explain
atoms which wished to make would take little
more time than had anticipated, gave way for
motion to adjourn. will now express as rapidly,
as can my impressions on this question; and it is,
perhaps, due to myself to say that, on the 9th Of
January, 1857. published letter indicating my
views on the whole subject in which took the po-
sition that this government had a right and was
bound to protect property in the Territories, but
could not abolish or exclude it, and that Terrific
rial legislature could have no greater power than
Congress- which created the Territory. In that let
ter said:
1.-THE right to legslate the Territories Of the
United States has, by some persons been derived
from hat clause of the Constitution which author
ICES Congress to dispose of and make all needul rules
and regulations respecting the territory.or other
property of the United States. Others maintain
that as an incident to the power to admit new States
the right to prepare the Territory for the condition
of State authorizes legislation
If neither of these clauses should be deemed sufi
cient to authorize legislation, then it may be con-
tended that in the first place, it must now be adj
mtted as a settled matter. that the Government of
the United States is capable of acquiring territory
by treaty. conquest, or discovery and of holding or
exercising authority over the same But the Gov
ernment derives all of its powers from the Constitu
ton; and, but for that instrument the President
the Senators, and members of Congress- would have
fha Torritorx fhop 9TH
set of people. three hundred in number.
1t is however, universally admitted that the Gov
eminent of the United States is only trustee of pow
err or agent for the people of the United States and
must exercise its authority for their benefit. As
the Government derives its power solely from the
Constitution, it cannot 60 beyond that instrument
and is bound by its limitations therefore 1t could
not for example, in the Territory grant titles of no.
bility. establish religion abridge the freedom IF
speech or of the press &C. Whichever of the three
sources of power he assumed MS the true one, it
seems clear that Congress and the President in
holding the territory, exercising jurisdiction over it.
can only legiSate to the extent required to protect
the interest of the Government and of the people of
the United States. The preservation of its own
property, and the protection of the property and
personal rights of the people, limit the extent of its
powers 1t is bound, however, to legisate, make
needful rules to that extent.
=
and slave. These are taken away from him by force,
and he is himself imprisoned. Now. it is obvious
that there should he laws to protect his own liberty,
and also his right to the possession Of his wife, child
horse, and slave. Hence, it follows, that there
must be power in Congress to legislate on the sub
ect of slavery we'll in relation to wives chill
dren, and horses. It is clear that the Government
has power to protect these rights. Can it 60 furth-
err? The Constitution declares that private prop
crty shall not be taken for public use (even) without
Just compensation The Government cannot, there
fore. take any property, or what is the same thing,
release another from obligation to me; which is
in the nature of property. While it may protect,
it cannot destroy personal rights.
1t must be remembered. however, that every slave
in the United States is necessarily the property OF
some person; but as the Government OF the United
States cannot destroy take away property it
not, Of course, change the relation of any one IN
these respects person is under obligation to serve
me for life, or shorter term, he cannot be released
from that obligation by Congress. because it cannot
take my property by any law that pass whether
the law is to operate in State or Territory. In the
latter it hound to preserve that is protect existing
rights; but it cannot destroy them. II, therefore,
its power is limited to the preservation of rights
in heing, such law as the Missouri compromise
which would destroy rights that already exist in
certain citizens, would be unconstitutional since il
might, and in fact must necessarily interfere with
property in slaves 1t seems to me that these prop
ositons cover the whole ground of controversy and
hence if they are held to be true, Congress cannot
except for public USE and with lust compensa
tion,' deprive any person of obligation on anoth
er, or declare that the owners right to his slave
shall not be recognized in any Territory of the Uni
ted States. And if Congress has not the power it.
SELF then it cannot delegate it; and hence the Kan
sas Nebraska bill does not carry with it any such
power"
l yesterday alluded to the opinions of Mr.. Cal
hsun. 1t is perhaps right that should say that ii
the very same speech from which I read, he expires
sed the opinion that Territorial Legislature hac
no right to exclude slavery, or to legisate agains
it. I concur with him in that He also. thinl
almost uniformly perhaps invariably. held that Con
gress had right and ought to protect all property
in the Territories subject to its jurisdiction; but hi
waived that right in his speech, to which referred
and in his support Of the Clayton compromise bill
which passed at the same session Of Congress, ant
only a few weeks afterwards, he again waived it,
| Rv &c fhot 4 La.