Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1860-04-07

therc was no precedent Tor IL III tne government;
that it called upon all men, everywhere, to raise
their voices in utter exccration Of the whole OF III
and we have been called upon, from day to day,
instead Of proposing to carry out this principle, to
disband utterly, throw down our arms, and dis
perse, the English said to our fathers upon the
field of Lexington. Sir, there is nothing in it at
all. 1t the very framework, 1t constituted the
great especial element Of the Constitutions; it was
one of the great leading purposes Of its formation
Gentlemen have wandered 40 far and so fast from
this principle amid the variety Of dogmas now set
up, one Of them being parent to the other, they
have made so large departure, that when they
come to look at the thing in its modern aspect
startled at it, because it does violence to their
ncwly-nvented dogmas, not because there is any
thing new or strange in it.
But, Mr. President, we acquired other and fur
thcr territory than what was owned at the time the
Constitution was formed We did not at that time
if you please, properly own that part Of the coun-
try which now makes Mississippi and Alabama.--
1t belonged to Georgia. Our people claimed it
claimed that the title to large part of it, Mt least,
was in the United States, and not in Georgia. That
was not merely the part ceded BY South Carolina
There another small piece; which was, the diff
ference Of :hc line Of Florida as made by the
British treaty, and as practically run. How did
the United States arrange the matter when they
acquired mere tcrritory-that part which they got
from North Carolina which makes Tennessee, and
that part which they obtained from France-the
Louisiana purchase; How did they manage under
this same Constitution in relation to the subject of
slavery in that country | had occasion to exam
inc, with some care, this very question some time
since, and presented it in as brief words as
could in the report which made in 1856, in rea-
ton to the Kansas difficulties. AS said then, |
desire to inquire what onr Government did in re-
laton to that, for two purposes in the first place,
to show what power they exercised it will clearly
show us what power they understood themselves to
possess aud not only SO, but the manner in which
they executed that power, clearly to show us
their purposes.
What did they do? l grant to the Senator from
Georgia, for | believe he has called our attention
two or three times this session TO the act Of 179S
that il is not true that Congress always prohibited
slavery in the Territories not that they had not
the power to do it, but because of its inexpedency
The true ground on which they went, the rule they
followed, was this, though somewhat modified in
Mississippi and Orleans Territories suffered to
remain. The fact that it had been taken there aud
existed there was deemed an indication of its
adaptation and local utility. When slavery did
not in fact exist to any apprcciabe extent, it
10y Congress expressly prohibited, SO that in either
case the country settled up without any difficulty
or doubt as to the character Of its institutions In
no instance was this difficult or disturbing ques-
tion left to the people who might settle in the Ter
ritories. to be there an everlasting bone of couten-
ton as long as the territorial government existed.
1t was regarded as a subject in which the whole
country had an interest, and therefore improper
for local legislation.
To illustrate this, will not 90 on with the his
tory Of governmental action from time TO time, as
Congress made different territorial governments in
the country northwest of the Ohio. | need not
show how they continued to repeat over and over
again the utter prohibition Of slavery; but will
call attention TO the act which has been remarked
upon by the Senator from Georgia, in relation TO
Mississippi. As to Tennessee, we all know that
North Carolina. in making the cession of the ter
ritory to the United States, prohibited them from
doing anything tending to the abolition Of slavery
In relation to Mississippi ! do not understand the
Georgia presents it. The a. -, sG gentleman ha ns ,in
States claimed large part Of that country, now
forming Alabama and Mississippi and Georgia
claimed nearly the whole of it. When the Misss-
sippi territorial act was passed, in 1898, it was
formed in anticipation Of, and it appointed a way
Of fixing commissioners for, the settlement Of that
dispute with Georgia. The territory settled,
as far as it was settled, with sla, eholiers and
slaves. 1t was expected that Georgia, in making
her ccssion, would do as North Carolina had done
in relation to Tennessee. That territorial act Of
l79S remained uuexecuted until 1902 In 1902,
the comssioners Of Georgia made settlement with
the United States, and then the United States
agreed to pay Georgia 81 ,2j0,O0O, for which she
quit-clainel all her right claim, and title, with
certain reservations; and, amongst other things,
she put in clause iorhidling the extension of the
anti-slavcry clause Of the ordinance Of 1887 over
that territory. They made their grant On that
condition.
What does that show The Senator from Geor-
gia says:
an l70s, when Congress egisl1tcd in relation to
Mississippi Territory, they did no' prohibit slavery"
No, sir, it was already there; actually establish
ed, and it was expected that Georgia would insist
on keeping it there, and She did insist on keeping
it there. But that was not all. The United States
then, in that very act, prohibited the importation
Of slaves from abroad though they could not pro-
hibit it in the rest of the United States until 1908,
BY what power did Congress do that Certainly
they received power for it from the provision Of
the Constitution that "thc migration or importa-
tion Of such persons as any Of the States now ex-
lsing shall think proper to admit shall not he pro-
hibitei by Con 'ress prior to the year 1905" That
did not give them any power about it except to
prohibit it in all the States after 1908; but they
did proceed to prohibit the introduction Of slaves
into the Mississippi Territory in 1898. Why -
Simply for the same that they did the rest;
they considered hemsely ms possessing the power
in framing territorial governments, to frame them
in such way, and with such prohibitions and con-
ditions, as they thought would best promote the
interests Of the nation. They derived the power,
no doubt, at that time, from that clause of the
Constitution called the territorial clause ty which
they were empowered to make all ncelfu rules and
regulations for the Territories None other can
be found. There cannot be found clause in the
Constitution which gave them the power, unless it
was that. know that ii is said, with regard to
Louisiana and otner acquisitions obtained by rea-
| ty with foreign nations, inasmuch as they have
power to acquire, they have the necessarily Incl
dental power to govern; but that cannot apply to
Mississippi. 1t was not acquired by treaty from n
foreign nation at all. They exercised the power
there under the territorial clause.
| Again, when our country made the Louisiana
purchase from France, in the first act forming the
territorial government of Orleans Territory, now
Louisiana, which was in 1903 or 1904, Congress
did not prohibit slavery; because it was already
there, and because IT was adapted to the country,
| suppose they thought. They suffered it, but they
did not leave It so. They provided that no slaves
should 60 in there except in families for settlement;
and in the next place, they provided that no
slave should he taken in there in any way that had
been imported into the United Statei after 179S.-
Why 1882 In l79S they passed the Mississippi
act prohibiting the importation of slaves from
abroad into Mississippi. They soon learned that
it afforded very little security to keep out imported
slaves from Mississippi when they could be i'm
ported into Georgia and taken over into Mississippi
Congress, therefore, provided, in the act for Or
/