The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-05-30

! imposed upon both This is confounding the
/ whole theory and the history of our Govern
| rnent. The States were the grantors they
| made the compact; they gave the Federal
agent its powers they inhibited themselves
| from dong certain things; and all else they
retained TO themselves. This Federal agent
got Just rs much as the States chose TO give,
no more. It could do nothing save by war
rant of the authority of the grant made by
| the States. Therefore its powers are not COM
parable to the powers OF the State Legislature,
| because one is the creature Of grant, and the
other the exponent of sovereign power. The
Supreme Court have covered the whole ground
of the relation Of the Congress to the Terri
| torial Legislatures-the agent oil the States
and the agent of the Congress-and the re-
strictions put upon the one are there put upon
the other, in language so clear as to render it
needless further to labor the subject.
In 1850. following the PRONUNCIATION OF this
notion of Squatter Sovereignty, We had the
/ idea of non-interyention introduced INTO the
Senate of the United States, and it is strange
to me how that idea has expanded. IL seems
TO have been more malleable than gold, to
have been hammered out to an extent that
covers bounless regions undiscovered by those
who proclaimed that doctrine. Non-interven-
ton then meant, as the debates show, that
Congress should neither prohibit nor establish
slavery in the Territories. That | hold to
now. Will any one suppose that Congress
| then meant by n-intervention that Congress
should legislate in no regard in respect to pro-
perty in slaves Why, sir, the very acts
! which they passed at the time refute it
There is the Fugitive Slave Law, and that
/ abomination of law which assumed to contis
cate the property of citizen who should at
tempt to bring it into this District with intent
i to remove il to sell it at some other time and
at some other place. Congress acted then
upon the subject, acted beyond the limit Of its
authority, as Ibeleyed-confidentl believed;
! and if ever that act comes before the Supreme
Court, feel satisfied that they will declare ii
/ null and void Are we TO understand that
| those men, thus acting at the moment, inten-
/ ded by non-intervention to deny and repu-
dfltc the laws that they were then creating
The man who stood most prominently the
advocate Of the measures Of that year. who,
great in many periods of our history, per-
haps shone then with the brightest light his
genius ever emitted refer to Henry Clay
has given his own view on this subject and
suppose he may be considered as the highest
authority On June Is, 1850, had intro
duced an amendment to the Compromise Bill,
providing:
"And that all laws, or parts of laws, usa-
res, or customs, pre- existing in the Territor-
les acquired by the United States from Mexico
and which in said Territories restrict abridge
or obstruct the full enjoyment of any right Of
person or property of a citizen of the United
l 1o1 tia1h xr tho
i Constitution or laws Of the United States, are
hereby declared and shall be held as repealed. .
i Upon that, Mr.. Clay said
! 'Mr. President, thought that upon this
/ subject there had been clear understanding
/ in the Senate that the Senate would not decide
itself upon the Ter loci as it respects slavery
that the Senate would not allow the Ter
ritorial Legislature to pass any law upon that
question. In other words, that it would leave
| the operation of the local law or Of the Con-
stitution of the United States upon that Local
| law to be decided by the proper and compe-
tent tribunal-the Supreme Court of the
/ United States 4AgpsHdiE to Congressional
( GLOBE, Thirty-first Congress, first session, P.
| 916.
That was the position taken by Mr.. Clay,
the leader. 4 mere sentence will show with
WIaI view T6SdEucA uOSIld VI
vention when that amendment was offered.
| said
But what is non-intervention seems to
vary as often as the light and shade Of every
fleeing cloud. 1t has different meanings in
every State, in every county, in every town.
If non-intervention means that We shall not
have protection for our property in slaves,
then l Away was, and always shall be, OPP
: bat uhan ,nf
have the protection of the law because it
would favor shareholders, the Congress shall
not legislate so as to secure to us the benefits
of the constitution, then am opposed to nom
Intervention, and always shall be opposed to it.
Appadir to Congressional Globe, thirty first
Congress, first session, p. 919.
Mr. Downs. one Of the committee of thir-
teen and an advocate of the measures, said +:
"What l understand by non-interye2tion
is, an interposition Of Congress prohibiting or
establishing, or interfering with slavery
Appsndir 70 Congressional Globe, thirty first
congress, first session, p. 919.
BY what species eff legerdemain this doc
trine Of non-intervention has come to extend
to q paralysis of the Government on the
whole subject, to exclude the congress
from any kind of legislation whatever, l am
at loss to conceive. Certain it is, it was not
the theory of that period, and it was not con-
tended for in all the controversies we had then.
| had no faith in it then / considered it an
evasion held that the duty of Congress
ought to be performed that the issue was be-
fore us, and ought to be met, the sooner the
better that truth would prevail if presented
to the people borne down to-day, it would
rise up tomorrow: and l stood then on the
same general plea which l am making now.
The Senator from Illinois Mr. Douglass and
myself differed at that time, as presume we
do now. We differed radically then. He
opposed every proposition which made, vo-
ting against propositions to give power to
territorial legislature to protect slave property
which should be taken there; to remove the
Instructions of the Mexican laws; voting for
a proposition to exclude the conclusion that
slavery might be taken there; voting for the
proposition expressly to prohibit its introduce
ton; voting for the proposition to keep in
force the laws of Mexico which prohibited it.
Some of these votes, it is tut just to him |
should say, think he gave perforce of his
instruction; but others of them, | think it is
equally fair to suppose, were outside OF the
limits Of any instructions which could have
been given before the fact.
In 1854, advancing in this same general
line Of thought, the congress, in enactine ter
ritorial bills, left out provisions which had
usually been contained in them before, re-
curing the legislature Of the territory to sub
NIT its laws to the congress Of the United
States. 1t has been sometimes assumed that
this was the recognition of the power Of the
territorial legislature to exercise plenary leg
islation, as might that of State. 1t will be
remembered that, when our present form of
Government was instituted, there we're those
who believed the Federal Government should
have the power of revision over the laws of
State. 1t was long and ably contended for in
the convention which formed the constitution;
and one OF the compromises which was made
was, to lodge an appellate power in the Su-
preme court to decide all questions of eonsti-
tutional law.
But did this omission of the obligation to
send here the laws of the Territories work this
grant of power to the Territorial Legislature?
Certainly not ; it could not, and that it did
not is evinced by the fact that at subsequent
period the organic act was revised because the |
legislation of the Territory of Kansas was Of
fensive to the congress Of the United States. |
Congress could not abdicate its authority it |
could not abandon its trust; and when it |
omitted the requirement that the laws should
be sent back, itcreated a casus which required I
t to act without the official records being laid |
before it, as they would have been if the OBJ /
legation had existed That was all the differ
ence. 1t was not enforcing upon the agent |
the obligation to send the information. 1t |
left congress as to its power just where it was.
| find myself physically unable to go as fully |
into the subject as / intended, and therefore
omittinga reference to those acts, suffice it to
say, that here was the recognition of the obi
CATION of Congress to interpose against ter |
rtorial legislature for the protection of personal
right. That is what we ask Of Congress |
now. am not disposed to ask this Congress
10 go into speculative legislation. | am not |
me of those who would willingly see this
congress enact code to be applied to all Ter
itories and for all time to come. only ask
hat cases, as they arise, may be met according
o the exigency. / ask that when personal
md property rights in the Territories are not,
~ existing laws and governmental machinery,
protected, then the Congress shall
intervene and provide such means as will Sc
,ure in each case. as far as may be, an ade-
luate remedy. I ask no slave code. nor horse