New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-03-09

t'ey vested IN congress me 10 hlpi
hns trade. They supposed then IL wonld die out with
| 6m any immediate abolition. lie WAS very much in
f1o Of carrying out this principle OF restriction and
linwaon. ls there anything this idea OF keep.
irR Slavery ont OF the Territories, aud in cutting on
the foreign trade One TO come in here, would thu
elements q the Constitution, and leading principle at
that day But We have acqu red further terrific y
since then, and bow did they arrange that? That
width they got from Carolina, and also that obtained
from France. Fnst, what power did they exer,
cise, ard in what mauEer did they exercise 1t !
/ tIsut Congress Id not always prohibit Slavery ID
the Territories not because they had not the right,
but be cause il was not pedient When Slavery ac-
tually did exist, was permitted to remain; but in
other CAGES expressly prohibited it was never
left to the people OF The Territories TO SETTLE for was
considered matter ia which the whole country was
interested. Ia the cession from Carolina she presay
made provision prohibiting the abolition OF Slavery
In the cesso from Georgia Congress cid not AXE any
prohibition, because they supposed Georgia would
mske the cams provision. IN the acquisition OF L)u ana
Congress did prohibit Slavery because it was already
there. But they prohibited the importation of slaves,
except in families, and prohibited the taki0g OF Slaves
in there in any ay that had been imported after 19S
The slaves in Carolina and other ave States ported
after that owned just as much AS those imported
before and yet nobody cOntradated the right OF Con-
eress to make this law. No, Sir The power to regu-
sie was admitted, aud this implies the right to pro-
hibit. When the of Missouri came up Officially
IreseDed tsef large portiou OF this Territory was
unsettled, and what did they do They knew could
lot be Free and Slave Territory at the time, 80
they divided the Territory, and now the prcposiuon
simlly is to restore the LIN then made. IL Was tuy
agreed to- and tboud never have been disagreed 70.
Ii there thing in this restoration that should call lor
execratiOn and vituperationl
Mr. BENJAMIN ,aid tire South endeavored to have
that line kept sacred but the Republican party have
broken the line and obtained territory to the north OF
it, Now, the South with the line restored.
Mr. COLLAMER said he thought the line should
pever have been broken but the line was made by the
South and he heard with great surprise the Senator
from Virginia say that II % an act OF Northern az
erosion. This line intended to settle the question
in all the territory then owned, bat aiterward the
SOuh wanted Texas and got the line put across 1t.
1hey then expected MORE and having got all they
could, they wished to break up the line aud extend
their system to the north of it. Why was that line
obi Grated The more excuses man makes the
suspicious he is. The Senator from VIZ,
The Senator from illinois (Mr. Douglas suppose,
would FAY it was because the North unfaithfu to
the compact Another Senator Gays 1t was IN ylols-
ton Of the Compromise measures of 1900. And, last
OF ALL one says unconstitutional all the WHILE
What is me ant by beiI true to the contract Wnyi
carving it out. When that line was made 1t was
Simply meant to run through tht purchase from the
French, aid nothing more. The North has always
fulfilled this contract But 1t never was part OF tile
origin to extend it TO territory beyond that,
and when the question came up OF territory obtained
from Mexico, there was no obligation 10 eNtend Tue
line over that territory. That was Free territory ana
what sort of execute is it for who has made Que
bargain to come back another occasion and say, III
you do not make another bargain, Will break up tue
ore already maGe.' The line was just aud proper,
sud be conended that there would be no special dan
ger to the South in the election OF Republican Presi-
cent. lie reviewed the provisions OF the Fuglllve
Slave act and commended that it was not the s4 ne AS
the act Of 1893 The law Of 1850 clothes the Comms-
siouer With final powers.
Mr. MASON Dem, Val-The Constitution re-
apires that fugtves nom service shall be delivered up
Does the Constitution submit any other question than
he held service, and did he escape not whether
rilhtfully otherwise!
Mr. COLLAMER-That does not touch the point.
When man was brought before Commissioner, the
question was, is the man fugitive Saver IL ne
was take him back,-n for trial-nO, this was his
trial.
Mr. MASON claimed that there no Slave State
in the ULion, but in which negro would have full
ard ample trial if the claim were made that he was
not fugitive.
Mr. COLL AMER would not make an iesue on this
point. He claimed that the decslon was final for all
practical purposes. You might as well say that an
eating-house is free for man TO get his dlnneri but
what good dOes that co If man has no money lie
referred to the speech of the Senator from Georgia
Mr. ToOmbs), and denied that there was any law OF
Vermont in conflict in any way with the COustitnlon.
Even if law happen to be, ~ woald haroy Jus'il!
he charge Of treason and perjury. The States; as
,ucb did not adopt the Constitutions the people had
to meet and adoptit. This is National Government,
and If the States pass unconstitutional law, SUI IL
ls no foundation for a dissolution OF the thlOn Yer.
tanIv there was no cor necon between such laws and
the election Of Repubh ;an President. Inc judgment
of Court is binding on the parties IN sait. Inc
United States never were party IN the Dfed SCOT
case and tie decision Of the Supreme Court Is tlere
fore not biodng on the people. judging from the
Democratic platform in regard to the United States
Bank the decisions of the Supreme Court are not p-
ta'lible. He claimed that by the Const'qnon' Con
gress has the gh to regulate and govern the Terrific
RES and that there was no provision IN 1t t1at
Congress shall not prohibit Slavery. The South
claim the right to take Slaves there, because they
property, but the Courts have deGael Ina ina
slaves are property Only by local law and when taken
out from such local authority that they are not property
You cannot take slave 10 Free state and keep MN
or cell him. Slaves are not property there 30 Iney arc
not property in the Territories where there
il no local law in reference TO them. Slaves
cannot be held at common law, ana were
never held legally in England Slavery was
forced on the colonies by special statue against Tue
dish Courts to show that slaves are not considered
lepal property But if slaves were property, we hid
no right to take them into the Territories lot the Ter
rtores do not belong to the several safes put 70 inc
people of the United States. If the Territories belong
10 the Staes each State has night to certain por-
ton of the land and if sold, to portion OF the money.
This s not the care. So,
Mr. BENJAMIN desired to reply. He thought the
Senator from Vermont had made mistake in history,
and wished TO correct him. The Territory of Louis'
ana acquired from France was exclusively slave ter
ritory. When Missouri applied for admission, the
North Ohiec and asked DIVISION when all was
slave territory TIE South weak and foolish, yielded
half, when it might have claimed the whole. The
next thing was the acquisition of territory where there
was no Slavery and the North objected to the South
having any share, because it was not slave territory
The South said continue the line of division and the
North objected, and hence the North broke the con-
tract Again III 1885, the North refused to abide by
the geographical line, and in 1854 went back
to the line again. Had the North carried the line to
the Western waters there would have been no clamor
to-day. The South had been right and generous, the
North exacting aggressive tyrannca and despolic.
He wanted to know If the restoration of the Inc was