The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1860-01-26

/
called the Senator's attention.
Mr. D00LITTLE. will ask the Senator, do
You say that Mr.. Polk, in that message, denied
the power of Congress-
Mr.. PUGH. He did. was going to tell the
| Senator that the message to which referred,
the original, is endorsed in Mr.. Folks hand
| writing;
al brought this message signed to the Capitol the
night of the Sd of March, ls4s intending 70 send TO the
House Of Representatives they persisted in the amend
ncnt to the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill ~"
Which was the Wilmot proviso; but the House
having receded, the message never was sent in
The paper is in existence. Large extracts OF 1t
have been published within the last month in
| the papers.
| Mr.. DO0LITTLE. shall be obliged to the
honorable gentleman if he will produce the mes
sage, and point out the paragraph in it in which
Mr.. Polk denies the power of Congress to legis-
late upon the subject of slavery in the Terrific
ries.
Mr.. PUGH The first sentence says it. Twill
| get the Senator the message.
| Mr.. D0OLITTLE. Get it, if you please. The
| special message which he sent to Congress at
the subsequent session, after approving OF the
Oregon bill, stated, as | understand 1t, the
grounds on which he would have vetoed the Ore
gon bill if that Territory had extended below
$50 30/, not upon the ground of constitutional
power, but upon expedieney. II, however, Mr.
bill was unconstitutional, and has affixed his sig
nature to bill which he considered unconstitu-
tional, that does not alter the fact Which sta
| ted, that every Administration has asserted, and
has exercised upon its official oath and respon-
sibiity, the power of legislating on the subject
of slavery in the Territories of the United States,
| from Washington down to the close of Mr.. Folks
| Administration; although, if the Senator from
! Ohio is correct, it would place Mr.. Polk under
very grave imputation. think, however, he must
| be mistaken.
| mir. PUGH lin the course of the subsequent
debate) said | believe the gentleman claims
nothing under Tyler
Mr.. DooLIrTLE lin reply to that said: 1t is
true did not refer to Mr.. Tyler's Administration
when Mr. Calhoun was Secretary of State, but l
will refer Senators to it now, to show that Con-
gress went even further than they did in any
other Administration. In the Texas joint reso-
lutions of admission, this language will be found:
New States size, and not exceeding four
number addition the said State OF Texas and having
sufficient population hereafter by the consent Of said
State formed of the territory thereof which shall be
entitled admission under the provisions Of the Federal
Constitution And such States may be formed out OF that
portion said territory lying south SO degrees 80 minutes
north latitude, commonly known as the
ne shall be admitted into the Union with or without
slavery people of each State asking admission may
desire Aud such State States shall be formed out
of said territory north Of said Mssourcompromse line sa
very involuntary servude (except for crmes Shall be
prohibited"
Mr. Tyler and his Administration went so far
as to prohibit slavery in the States.
Mr.. PUGH again, in the course of the subse-
quent debate upon this point said, among other
things:
But sir have heard the Senator talk about
what former Presidents and former Congresses
have done He does not open the Constitution
of the United States and show US this power.
He says it existed because it has been exercised.
Does he argue that way about other subjects
Does he go back to 1893, to the act providing
for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, and to its
recognition by every department of this Govern
meut, and by all the States, and does he say
that it is settled question: Oh, no, that is not
settled it is unsettled and / have heard the
Senator himself get up on this floor and say that
he did not understand the Constitution OF the
United States 10 vest in Congress any power to
provide for the reclamation of fugitiyes from
service.
Towhich Mr.. DooLITTLE replied: The difference
between the honorable Senator and myself is
simply this he can argue words out of the in
strument, or words into the instrument, at his
pleasure l cannot do it. The clause of the
Constitution in reference to fugitives from SER
vice does not say that Congress shall have the
power to legislate on that subject at all it says
no such thing. 1t simply says that State shall
not, by any act ofits own, discharge from service
fugitive who may be held to service under the
that as an orignsl question, coming up for dis
cussion, any good lawyer and strict construction
list of the Constitution will say, as say that the
Constitution of the United States does not, In
that clause, give to Congress any power to leg
islate at ALL But in relation to the other clause
of the Constitution to which have REFERRED 1t
expressly says Congress shall have the power.
That is the difference. In the one case 1T does not
say it where the gentleman says it has the power.
T., Al rylaa hQ
and insist that Congress has it, the Constitu-
ton saws it shall have the power. Now, let us
see tbs Sc clauses. ] have heard of a man being
able to argue the seal off bond in a court OF
Justice
Mr.. PUGH wish the Senator would read his
passage, for ! am very anxious to conclude my
remarks. ] am willing TO hear it.
Mr. DooLITTLE. The clause in relation to fu-
gitiyes escaping from service is as follows:
No person held to labor in State under
the laws thereof escaping into another shall in consequence
any regulation therein, be discharged from such
service labor but shall be delivered up on claim OF the
party to whom such service or labor may be due"
Now, there is no power given to Congress to
legislate on that subject 1t does lnhiblt the
power of a State to legslate in certain way,
and any law or any proceeding on the part OF a
State which has the effect to discharge the tugi-
tive from labor, is unconstitutional and void, by
the Constitution of the United States; and every
of the Supreme Court is bound so to declare it.
That is the true construction of this clause. But
in relation to the other clause the language is:
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make
all needul rules and regulations respecting the territory or
other property belonging to the United States"
The Supreme Court, in Ave different decisions,
beginning about 1910, and the last one in 1853
just about six months before you passed your
Nebraska bilI--unanimously decided that this
clause of the Constitution gave Congress power
to govern and legislate for the Territories. The
difference between him and me is this where |
maintain Congress has the power, the Constitu-
ton says it shall have the power; he maintains
it has the power where the Constitution does not
say it. Ny honorable friend here has the faculty
of arguing words in or arguing words out at his
pleasure. | have never yet learned to do that.
Mr.. D0OLITTLB Tin the regular order of de-
bate) said
And now, sir, let us for single moment look
at the question, aside from all precedent and ju-
dicial construction, and see where we stand.
What is the language of the Constitution:
"Te Congress shall have power dispose of and make
all needfu rules and regulations respecting the territory
other property belonging 10 the United States"
1t has sometimes been said that the power
which Congress exercises is power over the
territory as property merely. Suppose we take
that position, that Congress controls it as mere
property what then may Congress do2 What
may the owner of property do2 He may sell it,
refuse to sell it; he may lease it. or refuse to
lease it; he may sell it to a white man. to an In
dian, to a negro, or he may refuse to sell it to
either he can lease it to one, or refuse to lease
it to another. He can say that the foot of
slave shall never tread upon it. If you concede
that Congress control it as property, you con-
cede the whole ground of.power; for Congress
| \ cr a