The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-09-28

the question for themselves they would be
sure to adopt slavery and make the whole
slave country. Laughter. You see from
this that the Southern fre.eaters and the
Northern free-soilers united in opposing the
the opposite reasons.
Time rolled on, and two years ago the
Legislature of New Mexico enacted slave
code, introducing, maintaining and protect
ing African slavery within the limits of that
Territory. New Mexico therefore has be-
come slave territory under that principle
OF non-intervention and popular sovereignty
which was denounced by the Southern fire.
eater as worse than abolitionism.
Last winter the abolitionists in Congress
passed law through the House of Repre-
sentatives repeating the slave code of New
Mexico, in order to abolish slavery there,
and when that law was brought into the
Senate denounced it as violation of that
great principle of selfgovernment upon
which all our institutions rest. Applause.
The people of New Mexico, after trying
free Institutions for years, came to the COM
clusion that slavery was better for them and
their posterity, and hence they introduced it.
I say let them keep it until they become
convinced that their good requires them to
change again. Whenever they get tired of
their slave code they may repeal it, but l
will never do it for them. Cheers If
they want slavery let them have it; if it is
a blessing, it is their blessing--if it be a
curse, it is their curse. Let them decide
for themselves, and upon them rests the re-
sponsibility.
A voice" That's the doctrine"
In the Territory of Kansas, about two
years ago, the Legislature passed law
prohibiting slavery in that Territory. Gov.
Brown, OF Mississippi, brought bill into
the Senate to repeal that prohibition of
slavery, because, be said, it was unconstitu-
tional. told him in debate that if he be-
lieved it was unconstitutional, let him make
a case under the law and appeal it from the
territorial courts to the Supreme Court OF
the United States, and if that Court decid-
ed that that law of Kansas was unconstitu~
tional, then it was void, and there was an
end of the controversy. Cries of "That's
it," and cheers.
If, on the contrary, the Court held that
it was constitutional, the people had right
to it. and it should stand until they choose
to repeal it. Voices, Good again" and
applause. So, when the abolitionists con-
tended that the slave code of New Mexico
was unconstitutional, and therefore wished
to repeal it by an act of Congress, told
them to make their case under the law of
the Territorial Courts, appeal it to the Su.
! preme Court of the United States, and if
that Court decided that the slave code of
New Mexico was unconstitutional, it would
then become void, and there would be no
excuse for it to be constitutional, as l be-
lieve they would, then the people would
have right to have it, and they should
never be deprived of it by an act of Con-
ress, if could prevent it. Cries of"Good"
and cheers.
So you see, my fellow citizens, there can
be no excuse for Congressional Intervention
upon the subject of slavery in the Terrific
ries. If the people of Territory pass
law which violates the rights of any man
under the Constitution, the case can be
made and the Supreme Court will determine
the question and annul the law if it be
unconstitutional. Hence the position of the
Democratic party is now what it has been
for years--that of non-interference by Con-
gress with slavery in the Territories. I'm
mense applause.
You all know that a few years ago, when
the sbolitionists attempted to exercise the
power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the
Territories by applying the Wilmot proviso
all Southern men, and portion of the
Northern Democracy, denounced the at
tempt as an usurpation of power on the
part of Congress over the domestic institu-
tions of the people.
We regarded it then, as I do now, as an
infringement of the right of the people to
govern themselves. The Federal Govern
ment was created tor federal purposes, and
is endowed only with certain specific pow
ers, which are enumerated in the COnstitu'
ton, such one of which is federal, and not
domestic in its character.
For instance, the Federal government
may regulate intercourse with foreign ma
tions, may declare war, make peace, main
tain armies, establish navies, regulate COM
merce with foreign nations, coin money, and
do those things which effect the general
welfare of the Republic, without interior
Ing with the local and domestic affairs of
the people; but the Federal government has
no right to interfere with the relations be-
tween husband and wife, parent and child,
guardian and ward, master and servant, or
any other domestic and local regulation
which has not been delegated to Congress.
Cheers.
Hence, when the abolitionists of the North
attempted to prohibit slavery in the Terri
tories by an act Congress, all State rights
men, all old fashioned Democrats, all Kepub-
licans of the Jefersonian school, denounced
the attempt as an usurpation of power on
the part of Congress not delegated in the
Constitution.
We then said that Congress could not
exercise power over the domestic relations,
and hence that Congress had no right to in
terfere with the question of slavery, except
to provide for the rendition of a fugitive
slave when escaping from his master.
Congress had the power to provide for
the surrendering of fugitive slaves merely
because the Constitution of the United
States had so provided, and it did pass an
efficient law on the subject, which must
be enforced in good faith by every good
citizen. [Great applause.l 1 tell abolition
lists of the North that care not whether they
like or dislike the fugitive slave law, or the
provision in the Constitution providing for
the rendition of fugitive slaves, that so long
as the Constitution imposes that obligation,