Newspaper Page Text
Irt rW 31? W < I bIhhIMISWO AwT ©W i B ißlirl
Fl H. MBi Bi M 8 - ri M H m rt rt H -Iv /H M /H Bl - Jfl. M IT /HL
' ————M———. . .. - f". . • .
RY Z WILLIAM S. JONES.
- £»* <» . Jr.
warcljonscs,
ADAMS,
WAREHOUSE AND COMMISSION
MERCHANTS, AUGUSTA. GA.
£ WE WOULD respectfully an-K\.\yV<
Bounce to oar friendsand the
*^ eaEa lie, that ,we still continue
WAREHOUSE AND COMMISSION BUSINESS
at our vid stand, corner of Campbell andßeynold
streets, in the city of Augusta.
We have also established a House in
I Savannah, under the style of F. T. WILLIS & CO.,
and ran therefore (if desired) give our pinnting
fnends the advantage of both markets. The Savan
nah house will be under the superintendence of Dr.
Willis.
All business entrusted to our care will have atten
tion, Orders from our friends for goods will be
promptly executed.
Liberal adv tnces made on produce in store. Our
charges will conform to those of other houses.
ADAMS. HOPKINS CO, Augusta,
F. T. WILLIS & CO., Savanuah, Ga.
/ •'. '-e
D’ANTJ GNAC, EVANS &. CO.
WAREHOUSE AND COMMISSION
BUSINESS.
THE UNDERSIGNED have —sf
formed a co-partnership under the
styIeofD’ASTIGNAC, EVANS
& CO., for the purpose of truasaciing the Ware
House and business at Augusta, Geo.
Their extensive Pirc Proof Ware House is the
ramc occupied by IPA&tignac & Evans, situated on
Jack>on-s’reej, i>nmedia’cly at the depot of tlie Geor
gia Rail Road, where they receive all Cotton and
other consignments per Rail Road -without any
charge'for dray age. It is also conveniently loca
ted for tixe reception of Cotton from the Canal and
from wagons. They have in addition an office and
saies room in a central position on Broad-street, a
few doors below th* Insurance Hank, and nearly op
txwiu the Globe 11 -4, where one $f the partners
. .. may al kJi times be founih. They will also, by the
<fc COOKE,
FACTORS AND COMMISSION MER
CHANTS,
Savannnli Georgia.
THE UNDERSIGNED
have associated themselves, un- ferjSf
der the above style, in the bum
nose above specified. Mr. Hardwick is a Planter
of Hancock county, and, of course, identified in feel
ing and interest with his brother Planters. Mr.
Cookb is a citizen of Savannah, and thoroughly ac
quainted with all the branches of the COMMISSION
BUSINESS.
We are prepared to make liberal advances on pro
duce in store, and will fill orders for Plantation and
Family Supplies with scrupulous care.
H e are mutually bound not to tpecidate in Col
ton or any other article of Merchandize.
W’e respectfully solicit patronage and pledge our
selves to deserve it by faithful attention to the busi
ness entrusted to us.
R. S. HARDWICK.
_ j> 13-wtf J. E. G. COOK
FIRE-PROOF WAREHOUSE.
DYE, HEARD & CO.,
WAREHOUSE AND COMMISSION
MERCHANTS,
continue the above
nesg al ( be old stand of Dye,
'*®~ a **VßEßTS O N & Co., east side of Mc- KSB-S *®
Intosh-strect, where they are prepared to receive con
signments of COTTON AND OTHER PRODUCE
Orders for Bagging, Rope, and Family Supplies, fill
ed at tire lowest market price*.
Q’LIBERAL ADVANCES made on Produce in
Store. M. M. DYE, Augusta,
STEPHEN D. HEARD, Greene Co.,
aulO JAMES M. DYE, Augusta.
M. P. STOVALL,
WAREHOUSE AND COMMISSION
MERCHANT,
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA,
KV\\V\ CONTINUES the business,
in all its branches, at his old
&SEBI stand ( Pire- Proof Warehouse,)
’ corner of Washington and Reynold streets. He
hopes, by strict attention to business, to merit a con
tinuance of the liberal patronage heretofore extended
to him..
Orders for FAMILY SUPPLIES, BAGGING,
1 &c.. promptly and carefully filled, at the lowest
market prices.
O’ Liberal ADVANCES made on produce in I
etore. dlB-tw&wtf
PHINIZY <fc CLAYTON.
WAREHOUSE AND COMMISSION
BUSINESS.
Vr—V THE UNDERSIGNED are £VVVV\
no * P re P ar,e d for the reception of UMjH
Colton and other produce, and to
attend personally to ill business entrusted to them.
With a great desire toplease, and by a strict attention
to busmens, they hope to merit a share of public pa
tronage. E P. CLAYTON, from Clarke,
F. PHINIZY, from Oglethorpe.
N. B. Our Warehouse is the spacious and Fire
Proof one formerly occupied by Stovall <i Simmons
ou Broad street.
Augusta Sept. 8, 1849. tw£w6m
JOHN HARRIS,
Late of the firm of Bye, Harris <s• Co.) ♦-
FACTOR AND COMMISSION MER
CHANT,
Charleston. South Carolina,
W ✓ THANKFUL for the very
liberal patronage heretofore receiv-ygH®
ed. hopes by the facilities which
r he is enabled' to aflforJ, and strict attention to busi
ness, to merit its continuance.
Liberal advances will be made on Cotton and Pro
duce in store.
Orders fix Bagging, Rope and Groceries, filled at
the lowest market price, and forwarded through Au
gusta, to our patrons in the interior, free of commis
sions lor receiving and forwarding. Office Central
Wharf. sl-w6m
HEARD "DAVISON?
WAREHOUSE AND COMMISSION
MERCHANTS,
Mclntosh-Street Augusta, Ga.
ffrCtlWE CONTINUE the WARE-. -
HOUSE AND COMMISSION k J
laSSSI BUSINESS, et our Pire-Proof
Buildings on Melntosh-Street, and solicit a contin
uance ol the liberal patronage heretofore received.
Our prompt persxial attention given to all business
confided to us.
Liberal CASH ADVANCES made on prodace
in Store.
ISAAC T. HEARD.
auß-w6m JOHN DAVISON.
FLEMING, WHITLOCK <fc CO ,
WAREHOUSE AND COMMISSION
BUSINESS.
Augusta. Georgia,
THE UNDERSIGNED,
thankful for the very liberal pa
tr»»<iage of the past season, again IfiESS
tender their services to their friends in Georgia and
South Carolina, in the rale of COTTON AND
OTHER PRODUCE, at their Brick Warehouse,
centrally situated on Campbell, near Broad street.
made on Cotton and other produce.
FLEMING, WHITLOCK & CO.
P. Flkminq.
> 1. W. Whitlock.
X M. Hand. «24
FIRE-FROOF BRICK WAREHOUSE
SPEARS, BEALL & CO.,
Broad-Street, Augusta. Ga.,
lIAVISG FOllitED « copin- gTgl
KjSflBS nership for transacting a general
WAREHOUSE BUSINESS, re
spectfully UTer thetr services, to their friends and the
public generallv
WM. M. BEALL is also interested in the Grocery
Business, transacted by Spears & Buford, who are
now receiving a large ani well selected stock from
the N art hern cities. His prompt and personal atten
tion will be given both to the GROCERY AND
W R F.HOUSE BUSINESS, and ail orders will be
exe Q uted as low as by any house in the city.
L iberal cash advances made on Colton and othe
Produce in atcr© when required.
FRANCIS SPEARS,
WM. M. BEALL,
aul-8m W M. H. BUFORD,
Vv ORM3, WORMS, WORMB.“
A GREAT variety of Compounds, under the
name of Vormiftige. are before the pntdic, most
of which, alt hough often effective in expelling Worms,
owe their active properties to Mercury, Croton Oil,
and other dangerous eutwiaeces, and cannot be con
sidered so Perfectly Safe, in all cases, as the
COMPOUND SYRUP OF PINK ROOT, or
RISLRY S VERMIFUGE. J
which • eo.«»tr»tsd extract of Pini-Koot, Sen- ’
»« IFormsecd, made into a palatable Syrap,
aococdsuj; to a fiwu'.uta approved by the M«dieat Fa
cully. Sold wholesale and retail by
HAVILAND, RISLEY & CO.
Alro, by Country Merchants generally. Price 25
cents. fe3'3m
M ELOD EO N 3.
MEtOI)RO?ia.-»J is! tneeived bytbeSub
aeribere an assortment of Prince A Co.*s Im
proved Patent MELODEONS, ... Instrument well
adapted for Sacred Music—twin ; an excellent sub
stitute for the I’ntan Using sniticienily loud for a
Parlor or small Church. For rale at Factory pucw,
with freight added, by
GEO. A. OAIES A CO
Broad- st., between U. Slates and Globe Hotels,
directly opposiu it*. State Hank. felt*
DISSOLUTION
JT. BOTHWELL having this day pur
• chased the interest of' T. B. Smith A E.
botH.tu. i. the firm of J. T, Hot.will A Co.,
Mid tirta is therefore dissolved. The tiu.ineec will be
conducted by th. said J. T. Hothwill a. hereto
fore, and all demands agauwt the firm will be settled
by him and these indebted for last t ear's accounts are
rrauemed toeall and eettle.
J. T. BOTHWELU
T. B. SMITH,
E. BOTHWELL.
February 23, ISSO. fo2l 6
NB PLUS ULTRA INTEREST TA
BLES.
SBVBK PER CBST., in which are shown
the Interest on any eura from Otte Doiiar to One
Thousand cows, utiveiy, (want length of
time, from One to Three Hnm'red and Sixty, oy
Days; andabax. from one day totwo and a hall years,
by years, months and days, by the addition of two
sums only, which .re both taken from the same ta
blea; by Gemge OatM, author of **Six percent. In
tnrratTables,” ftc. Jos', pubiisbed. .nd can be had,
wbalesal. and retail, at
„ GKO. A. OATES A CO ’S
Pmn<-. Boot Bnmd-ta., between
lb. V-S. and Gfobe H.a-L-
’ NBdV SUPPLIES OF
.4 S*TOM ,c AE PLATES. Hl mis ot 16
-b s half the foae rs hfe-plam att J cofort d
I—French el Notirgrn and Jacob ■ wlh an
l.kT. ***’ Cbforofoam, Col-
AU b «"**»’. Medics’ Saddle riLrx a
A- .apply of Drag., MedieiOM. Chemicals
-ww wy wvry •tvamer. aud *«x bv
ton M * v »tAX» RISLEY A CO X
iftmns,
THE WEEKLY
CH RONICLE AND SENTINEL
Is Published every Wednesday,
A.T TWO DOLLARS PER ANNUM
IN ADVANCE.
TO CLUBS or INDIVIDUALS sending us Ten
Dollar , SIX copies of the Paper will be sent foione
year, thus furnishing the Paper at the rate of
SIX COPIES FOR TEN DOLLARS.
or a free copy to all who may procure ub fire sub
scribers, and forward us the money.
;HE CHRONICLE AND SENTINEL
DAILY AND TRI-WEEKLY,
Are also published at this office, and mailed to sub
scribers at the following rates, viz.:
Daily Paper, if sent by mail-..-S7 per annum.
Tri-Wsskly Papbr 4 u “
TERMS OF ADVERTISING.
In Wbbkly.—Seventy-five cents per square (12
lines or less) for the first insertion, and Fifty cents
or eeeh subsequent insertion.
mn iHiioMtiE omn
SELECTED POETfif
THE ANNUNCIATION TO THE SHEPHERDS.
O’er Jndea’s vine-clad vales
Night and placiJ silence reign ;
A charm hath laid all wanton gales,
But Zepber leads her gentle rain,
f .yur And senners from dew-deppt wing
Sweet, of Autumn, fr«b lilt. Spnng,
i 1 fey'2 '*■ ‘’“‘‘’itXffy* '' s,Bb!
: ■
f The shepherd (proa upon nts erook,
I And guards the tinkling fold ;
Yet often views, whh wonder filled,
(Porhe in starry ’ore is skilled,)
Pleione's daughters, sad yet pure.
Orion, and bright Cynosure,
Lo! his eye what visions meet,
As if ♦Elokirn appears,
Hark! it sounds, so lost, so sweet,
He who hears, scarce knows he hears ;
It is sky born melody,
The heavens shine one galaxy;
Glory, trembling, fills the air,
Angels veiled in light appear!
Hand in hand, in circling wreath,
They float midway earth and sky,
While clouds of rosy light beneath,
Half shade them to the eye;
Now, brighter glow those clouds, and they
Fade in liquid light away ;
Now, the excess of light withdrawn,
On the dazzled eye they dawn.
Soon the airy band unlinks,
Gliding thence on dove like wing,
Earthward one white seraph sinks,
Whilst his fellow chorists sing—
“ Glory to Thee, God on high !
“Monarch ol the earth and sky,
“Who by us dost send to men
“Tidings of great joy—Amen.”
Whilst these voices ravish night,
On a near hill’s moonlight brow,
Soft his stainless feet alight;
Thrice he waves an olive bough,
Aa if audience he bespeaks ;
Then unto his youthful cheeks,
Prom his side, a trump applies,
’Till its echoes sweep the skies.
Earth! wake all thy sons, and bear!
Heaven’s descending benison, —
Henceforth shall Messiah’s year,
On its blissful circuit run ;
He, this day, at break of morn,
Shall, in Bethlehem, be born,
Saviour, Father, King of Men,
Glory be to God— Amen.
Wherefore, Shepherds ! stand and gaze,
All the serial scene hae fled ;
Morn now shoots her saffron rays,
Haste, the joyful message spread I
Which, as your glad tongues impart,
Shall light up each brother’s heart,
’Till all say, iu one accord,
“Come with us, and praise the Lord.”
A. M. R.
*Elokim is the Hebrew for God.
THE LIFE BOAT.
BY OLIVER OGLETHORPE, LL. D.
Or the Wreck on the Black Middens.
Quick ! man the life-boat: see yon bark ;
She drives before the wind—
The rocks ahead—and loud and dark
The raging storm behind;
No human power in such an hour,
Can avert the doom that's o’er her;
See ! her mainmast's gone, and she still drivefl on
To the yawning gull before her.
The life boat, man the life-boat!
Quick, man the life-beat! hark—the gun,
That thunders through the air;
And see the r ignal flag flies on,
The emblem of despair ;
—Xhy. firftaukSAUA;. i. .. .
Seemed from the wave to sweep her ;
Ha 1 the ship has struck —she’s upon the rock —
And the wail comes louder and deeper.
The life-boat! man the life boat!
Quick ! tnan the life-boat! sec—the crew
Gaze on their watery grave;
Already some, a gallant few,
Are battling with the wave;
And one there stands, and wrings his hand,
As thoughts of home come o’er him ;
For hie wife and child, through the tempest wild —
He sees on the heights before him.
The life-boat, man the life boat!
Speed, speed the life boat!—off she goes
And as they pulled the oar,
From shore and ship a shout arose,
That startled ship and shore;
Life-saving ark ! yon doomed bark
Has immortal souls within her;
More than gems or gold, is the wealth untold
Thoul’t save if thou cun'st but win her.
Ihe life-boat! speed the life boat!
Hurrah ! the life-boat dashes on!
The Middens darkly frown ;
The rock is there—the ship is gone,
Full twenty lathomsdown ;
But desperate men when battling then;
W ith the billows, single banded ;
They are all in the boat! hurrah ! they’re afloat —
And now they are safely landed.
Hurrah ! hurrah for the life boat I
The following stanzas by the late P. P.Cook.
of Winchester, Va., author vs Florence Vane,
the Froissart ballad*, etc., we take from the
Southern Literary They strike us
as having a peculiar beauty.
“TO MY DAUGHTER LILY.”
“Six changeful years are gone, Lily,
Since you were born to be
A darling to your mother good,
A Itapp’nets to me.
A little shivering, feeble thing
You were to touch and view,
But we could see a promise in
Your baby eyes of blue.
“ You fastened on our hearts, Lily,
As day by day wore by,
And beauty grew upon your cheeks
And deepened in your eye;
A year made dimples io your hands
And plumed your little feet,
And you had learned some merry ways
Which we thought very sweet.
H And whee the first sweet word, Lily,
Your wee mouth learned to say,
Your mother kissed it fifty tiiuee,
Ami marked the famous day.
1 know not even now, my dear,
If it was quite a word,
But yoor proud mother surely knew,
For she the sound had heard.
“ When you were four yeare old, Lily,
Yon were my little friend,
And we had walks and nightly playt
And talk without an end.
You little ones are Fometiuies wise
For you are undefiled,
A grave grown man will start to hear
The strange words of a child.
“ W ben care pressed on our house, Lily,
Preasod with an iron hand—
-1 bated mankind for the wrong
Which festered in the land—
But when I read your young frank face
Its meanings sweet and good.
My charities grew clear again—
I felt by brotherhood.
“ And sometimes it wetdd be, Lily,
My faith in God grew cold,
For 1 saw virtue go in rags,
And vice in cloth of gold ;
But in vour innocence, my child,
And in your mother’s love,
I learned those lessons of the heart
Which fttsteo it above.
At last our cares are gone, Lily,
And peace is back again,
As you have scan the sun shine out
After the gloomy rain ;
In the goxi land where we were torn
We may be happy still,
A life of love will blew our home—
The house upon the hill.
•* Thanks to your gentle (ace, Lily !
Its innocence was strong
To keep me constant to the right,
When tempted by the wrong.
The little ones were dear to Him
Wbo died ufwa the Rood—
I ask His gentle care for you
And for your mother’s good.”
HOME AND FRIENDS.
Ob, there’s a power to make each hour
Aa sweet as heaven designed it;
Nor need we roam to bring it home,
Though few there be who find it!
W« seek too high for things close by,
And Use what nature found us,
For life has here no charms so dear
Aa Home and Fneods around us !
We aft destroy the present joy
For future hopes—and |<aise them ;
Whike Sowers aa sweet tMo.ua at oar feet,
If we’d but ctoop to raise them ’
For things afar sttii sweeter are,
When youth’s bright spell hath bound us :
But rooa we’re taught that earth haa naught
Like Home ead Friends around us.
The Friends that speed in time of need,
Wnea Hup- ’* last reed is shake®,
To show us still, that come what will,
We are not quite forsakeni
Though all wet* nigh—ts but the light
From Friendship s altar erowami us,
Twould prove the bliss oi earth was this
Our Home and Friends aroood on 1
f P OTA9I< « POTASH—I.BOO n«- <« excel]
I JR lent quality, just received aod for sale by
| mh2 ddtw WM. H. TUTT, Druggist.
POLITICAL NEWS.
SPEECH OF MR. BERRIEN.
OF GEORGIA.
' ON MR. CLAY’S PROPOSED COM-
PROMISE.
L In the U. S. Senate feb. 11, 1850.
The Senate having under consideration the
i ; resolutions offered some days ago by Mr.
» I Clay-
Mr. Berrien said. lam very sensible,sir, of
i the difficulties which encompass the subject
| that now engages the consideration of the
1 Senate. Ol these difficulties, some are intrinsic.
If they do not belong lo and inhere in the
j-übject under discussion, they have been so
absolutely identified with it, that there have
been momenta of despondency in which 1
have been tempted to fear that it might not be
possible tn surmoun’ them An interest of
vast magnitude is affected, directly or indirect
ly, by the princples which are involved in the
discussion before the Senate. It is impossible
to estimate the magnitude of that interest by a
consideration of its pecuniary advantage, great
as that unquestionably is. No, sir; there are
feelings inseparably associated with that interest
which no man unconnected with it is capable
of appreciating. They are the recollect,ions
of infancy ; they are the occupations of man
hood ; they are the graver thoughts of declin
ing age. It is associated with our habits, with
tome of the very best affections of cur nature.
That interest has been rudely, perseveringly
assailed. It were idle to forbear to state, as it
is useless to attempt to deny the fact. Afore
recently, the opposition to it has been system
atized and extended, so as justly lo excite the
apprehension of every reflecting mind. The
people of the Soulhare at length aroused lo
a sense of the danger to which they are ex
posed. You will permit me to say that you
have awakened a feeling winch can no.longer
trifled with Jjpeak plains : the <-
I to beWare. and receive it in the same kindly
spirit in which it is offered. I repeat, sir, that
I utter no menace. It is not my purp<
do so. My respect for myself, for the Senate,
and especially for my associates in this cham
ber, would necessarily exclude them from any
remark which I have to make.
The fanaticism by which we are now assailed
was in its origin, probably as annoying to our
fellow-citizens of the free States as it was to
us. They did not join it, but they did not
oppose it with the effect which might then
have been given to their opposition, in fact,
sir, and to a certain extent, they gave it their
sanction, by the approbation of the principles
which it professed, and by simply pointing to
the constitution as the reason why those prin
ciples could not be enforced. In process of
time these principles, or those who advocated
them, acquired a strength which was felt in the
conflicts of party in the free States; and then
they were courted by each party.
in the course of the last year this feeling has
more amply developed itself. We have seen a
large section of a great party seceding from
their political associates upon the avowed
ground of what they denominate “ Free Soil.”
And we have witnessed the remnant of that
party and the aggregate of their opponents
struggling to declare and to prove their greater
devotion to this principle. The united North
has thus become engaged in a crusade against
the rights and the interests of the South. It is
a union composed of Whigs and Democrats,
of seceders, and the South is thus put under
the ban of the Republic.
Now, sir, it cannot surprise you if. with this
manifestation of a universal disposition in the
free Slates, in various mndes, to assail an inter
est which is cherished in the South—it cannot
surprise you if this has awakened a feeling in
that portion of the Union which I am bound to
say must not be subjected to further irritation,
unless you are willing to place it beyond your
control and beyond ours ; in a word, sir, beyond
all humin control. The feeling to which 1
have reference is not that which is noisily
uttered by the demagogue in popular assem
blies. It ri not that which forms the theme of
the political partisan in legislative halls. No,
sir; no, sir. It is that feeling which is sadly
expressed iu the family circle, and around the
domestic hearth. It is that feeling which you
have awakened. It is that feeling which you
must respect in your future legislation upon this
subject.
1 have united, heretofore, at some personal
hazard of the sacrifice of popularity and
station—l have united with my friends of the
free States; foreseeing the consequences of
the measures which were then in operation,
foreseeing the evils which they would bring
upon us, 1 have joined with them at some
such hazard in the effort to prevent it. We
failed. The evil is upon us. The territory
which we have acquired by an expenditure of
blood and treasure is about to subject us—
unless under the mercy of Providence we are
guided by wiser counsels than those we have
exhibited—to an expenditure in couiparison
with which the blood aud treasure expended
upon the Mexican conquest would sink into
insignificance. I have unhod with thk repre
of lliO J*6e States- iu-ltre '
prevent the occurrence of this Uitllcutly. Nay*
sir ; if some two or three of them could have
remained firm upon the ground they have oc
cupied, it would have been prevented. I am
desirous now to unite in averting, if it be possi
ble, the dangers which are threatened. It may
require some self-sacrifice; it may require the
sacrifice of popularity or official station. 1
am willing to make it, if you will present me
any ground upon which an honest man may
unite with you in giving peace to the country.
I know, sir, that in making this offer, the sac
rifice upon my part would be comparatively tri
fling with those of men in the earlier stages of
life, with more extended prospects for the
future, and with greater political aspirations.
But lam willing to give you all 1 have, it
may be less than the widow’s mite, but it is ail
that I have lo give, for the first great desire ofmy
heart is that to which you cannot minister.
I have endeavored thus to present to the
onsideration of lire Senate the impressions of
my own mind, in relation to'the magnitude and
difficulty of this subject, for the purpose of
urg ng upon them them tho truth of tho con
viction which I feel that, if these difficulties can
indeed be surmounted, it is only by a calm,
dispassionate, and. ns far as may be, impartial
consideration of them, under a full sense of the
duties which we owe to each other aa members
of this great society of States. And I derive
something of hope—oh no, sir, that falls far
short of conveying what I would express—l de
rive a hope, amounting almost to confidence,
from the cheering recollection that these diffi
culties, these sell same difficulties, existed at
the time of the adoption of our constitution,
and that they were then surmounted by the
patriotism of our fathers.
There are other difficulties which have been
connected with this sucject. They have been
generated by the madness of fanaticism; by the
colder, mo’e calculating, more selfish spirit of
political demagogues : by tire excitable and ex*
cited feelings of a wronged and insulted peo
ple. These may be surmounted, if we resolve
to meet them in the unselfish self sacrificing
spiri* which our duty demands from all and
from each of us—with a determination on ev
ery side of this great question, to yield whatev
er mav be yielded wiihout a sacrifice, not of
mere speculative opinion, but of constitutional
principle. Sir, there have been many crises
in the brief history of thia republic—appalling
dangers have often menaced us—and we have
more than once stood upon the brink of a
precipice from which one advancing step would
have plunged us into the fathomless abyss of
anarchy, with all its countless horrors. At
least, such has been the picture presented to us
by our political orators and essay ists, from the
rostrum and from the press. And yet. sir, in
the deepest hour of gloom there has ever been
found some auspicious moment in which the
light of truth has penetrated the clouds of fol'y
and passion, of fanaticism and selfishness ; has
dissipated the mists of error and awakened the
slumbering patriotism of our countrymen, and
hae revealed to ns our glorious charter, unscath
ed amid the tumult, tn all its original strength
and vigor. So may it ever be ! In the dark
est hour of our national fortune, let us never
despair—O no, sir, let us never despair. For
myself though age has somewhat checked the
current of my blood, I would still cling to this
hope with ail the hopefulness of youth. I
would catch, if it might be, some portion of the
dauntless spirit of the gallant manner tossed
upou the rolling billow.
All around him one wide ocean,
AU above him one dark sky,”
who still ainid the fury of the tempest, could
merrily sing or gratefully remember,
“There’sa sweet little cherub sits perched up
aloft.
To look out a good berth for poor Jack.”
More gravely, sir, addressing mysel r to the
highest legislative assembly of a Christian peo
ple. I shonld say. I have an abiding confidence
that the. God of our fathers will be the God of
our children ; that He will be our God; that He
will graciously enable ns to observe that glori
ous fabric which his mercy and his goodness,
not the might and strength of oor ancestors,
enabled them to construct: and that countless
generatio-s, enjoying he rich heritage which
which they have transmitted to ns. and which
bv his blessing, we will transmit to them, will
in distant ages, unite in tribute of gratitude lo
their memories, which in this our day it is our
priv lege to offer.
Yet. sir, we must not forget (in indulging
ibis hope) that the providence of God is often
exerted through the agency of man,, and that
we must be mindful of our own duties if we
would hope for his mercy. I ask of my hono
rable associates in this chamber, then, to come
to the consideration of this subject in that spirit
of couiiliahon which can alone lead to a prop:
nous result. I ask them to remember that we
are bretheren of a common family, uniied by a
ttM>ueu.d social as well as political ties, I ask
them especially to remember that in such a
condict as that which menaces us. t**e splendor
of victory would be dimmed by the unnatural
character of the strife in which it was achiev
ed.
Coming to the consideration of this question
in the spirit of these feelings, it seems to be
appropriate to express my nigh sense of the
patriotic and generous motives which prompt
ed the introduction of these resolutions by my
honorable friend from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay.)
He will allow me to use that term, since he
knows that it is used with a lull sense of wh*t
it is which that reihtinn implies. And it I do
not, tn referring lo bun, auuex to hts name those
honorary prefixes in which Senatorial courtesy
AUGUSTA, GA.., WEDNESDfjft. M<»RNING, MARCH 6 IHSO
is accustomed to iudulge, it will bo becMii
those titles t<> respect and admiration have bee
already awarded lo him by h : s country and b
the world, it will, because he is already in th
full enjoyment of the rich reward which is be
stowed by “the unbougbt homage of the brav
and free” in his native land—of all, in ever
clime, where liberty has a resting place or free
dom a votary, lie has my sincere good wish
p s that he may long live to enjoy it; and wbei
at last he sh«ll be called to cast off this frail cov
ering of humanity, which he has so
worn that his closing eyes may rest upon a free
happy, and united people, with whose glorj
his fame will he indissolubly connected.
Mr. President, passing to the consideratior
of the subject which is before the Senate, I do
sire to say in the outset, that abstaining fron
a minute examination of the several resolution?
which have been presented by the Senator from
Kentucky, it will be my purpose to abslraci
from them those principles, the consideration
of which, it seems to me, will be lies: calcula
ted to lead to an amicable adjustment ofthis un
happy controversy. The Senator from Ken
tucky presents to us a series of resolutions
which propose a compromise of this matter.
He stares his readiness to accept such modifica
tion of them as may b ; consistent with the great
purpose in which they originate. He says to
Senators, here is my offering on the alter of
my country. Adopting the spirit, if not the
'anguage, of a Roman poet, he says if you
know any thing more advantageous than this,
propose it; if not, accept that which I offer to
you. The proposal is filir, frank, and manly.
It requires to be met. It must he met in the
same spirit in which it is tendered What, then
sir, is the condition in which we, who are the
representatives of the Soudi, stand upo n this
occasion ? You have acquired in the prosecu
tion of the war with Mexico an extensive ter
ritory. You have not merely acquired a num
ber of acres of land, for which you could make
needful -
wnoift, which by Mexico, has
been trahsferrf’d to yoc? You are under the
obligation to provide a government for these
men; for you have bound yourselves by the
treaty stipulations, which have become the su
preme law of the land, to give that protection
which can be no otherwise afforded than by
extending to them a government. Now, in
the formation of this Government, and in ad
vance of any distinct proposition upon the sub
ject, what do we hear from the Legislatures of
the free States, or the Representatives of those
Stales who have chosen to advert to this sub
ject upon this floor ?
You are about to make a Government for
these Territories. That you owe to the peo
ple who have been transferred. You are
about to make provisions for the disposal of the
public domain, and for the regulation of the
intercourse of those who may emigrate to that
Territory. That you owe to your own peo
ple. And it is just at this point that tha contro
versy commences.
The South says to you, we are a portion of
the American people; we have equal rights
with you in thus territory; we require that, in
the regulations which you make for it, you
shall do nothing which will prevent us from
the full exercise and enjoyment of them.
The North says, you cannot be permitted to
enter those Territories unless you divest your
selves of certain rights, which, within the lim
its of the United States, you possess.
This is the bone of contention. But more
particularly, there is a domestic institution pre
vailing in a portion of these States The Sen
ator from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster) will
execuse me if 1 still use the term which on a
former occasion, was subjected to his criticism;
and if it shall be still a subject of cavil, I in
voke the aid of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Foote) to vindicate it, etymologically; to
prove that the word statuo is interpreted to set
up, to appoint, to establish ; and that the rela
tion which exists between the different classes
at the South may be properly denominated an
institution set up, appointed, or established by
those who have the control over it I repeat,
then, there is in a portion of these Statesa do
mestic institution, which I beg Senators to re
mark was at the time of the formation of this
constitution, common to all the States ; which
was at the time of the Declaration of Indepen
dence common to all the colonies; one of which
is deemed necessary to the comfort and happi
ness of those by whom it i« retained ; that they
entered into their present bond of Union with
this institution subsisting in its full force, as it
now does, with the declared purpose to con
linueit indefinitely; that they were not merely
accepted and welcomed in.o the Union of the
Stales with this institution, but were urged to
enter it. And yet it is this institution, existing
at the time that the constitution was formed,
with the avowed determination to continue it
in that Union w hich was about io be formed,
which was recognised and protected by various
provisions of the constitution—it is this institu
tion, the existence ©fwhich is to deny to, a por
tion of the pople of the United States the rights
which they would otherwise be permitted to
exercise.
The South asserts, then, her right to parl'i
cipate jiH hhv and in ail us the yriiq
’mwy o<! *by the tiuroa &fntes. SW'
asserts her ncht to emigrate to them; With her
property of every description. That is the
precise right which is denied by the North ; ac
companied by this further declaration, ma le in
legislative bodies and on this floor, that it is not
merely the principle of Free-Soilism, as it is
now understood which is to guide the future
action of the Congress of the United States—
for that is limited to the avoidance of that most
horrible of all grievances, the extension, as it is
called, of slavery to a soil which is now free—
but the proposition which is maintained here
and elsewhere, is that neither in the present
nor in future, acquisition of territory which
shall be made by the United States, whether it
be riave or free, shall slavery exist. The flag
of this Union, according to this idea, is never
to float over any State or Territory in which
slavery may exist, unless it is in those States or
Territories where it is now established. If it
could be shown—and, if I have strength, !
hope to be able show—that the South has with
the North equal rights under this constitution ;
that the inevitable result of that equality of
right to participate in all the acquisitions which
are made by this Government; and that no
incidental circumstance attending the condition
of any one of the parties to the constitution,
can, in the exercise of an implied power, de
stroy the right which is founded upon that ele
mentary principle of equality; ifthis be demon
strated, there would result an obligation on the
part ol Congress, supposing them to be invest
ed with the power of legislation upon the sub
ject of slavery, not to prohibit the citizen of the
United States from the enjoyment of a right to
participate in the common territory of the
Union, but lo remove, if it were necessary,
any obstruction which exis:ed to the enjoy
ment of that right. If Congres possessed a
power to leEiflate upon the subject of slavery
in the Territories of California and New Mex
ico, and there existed any obstruction to the ex
ercise of the right of the citizen of the South,
the South might, with confidence, appeal to
them to exercise this legislative power, for the
purpose of removing these obstructions. But
we make no such appeal. And now I de-ire
Senators to observe the footing upon which,
so far as I understand it, the Southern claim
rests. We make no claim to your interference.
We do not invoke the exercise of your legis
lative power. We deny that you possess such
powers We say to Congress, exercise the
power which you possess, from whatever
source this may bederived, of instituting Gov
ernments for these Territories. Abstain from
legislating upon the subject of slavery. You
assert one principle and we another. Leave
that principle to be decided by the consti
tutional arbiter between us. We do not ask
your legislative aid. What we deprecate is
your legislative interference. Organize the
Governments of these Territories as you may
see fit. No Southern man will interfere to op
pose your progress. But abstain from the use
of the power which you affirm and we deny,
and give us the privilege of referring the ques
tion of difficulty between us to the common arbi
ter established by the constittilioa. Organize
yunr Territories as you will; but abstain from
any act of legislation calculated to abridge tho
enjoyment-of a right which we assert. Ab
stain from any legislation r*it!cni«ted .c inter
fere with the enjoyment of.that rishi, and then,
boldly advancing with all the power of vonr in
tellect, maintaining the opinion which vmihold,
give us the right, with humbler faculties and
feebler intellects, to go before the constitution
al arbiter, and to assert our rights.
This is the state of the contest, and in this
state of things, I appeal to the Senator from
Kentucky, what is it that we are in a condition
to surrender ? What is it that we shall be ask
ed to yield ? We say that we have a right to
participate in these Territories, and we ask you
to legislate for them without interference with
our enjoyment of that right. This you deny, j
Give us then the privilege of going before the
constitutional tribunal. What are we to yield ?
Must we yield our constitutional rights to in
voke the judgement of the h.ghest tribunal of
the Union ? We have nothing else lo yield.
I am perfectly aware, sir, that in reference
to this, it may be said upon ihe Missouri ques
tion, that it is an abstraction; that if we have
the constitutional right which we claim, no
legislation of Congress can interfere wi h it
1 agree that it cannot legally inierfere— I agree
that all the legislation of Congress conflicting
with the constitutional right of the citizen is in
valid; and I maintain that such would there
fore be in law invalid. But what then, sir?
Would it be so in fact, while it was in opera
tion and before tire judgment ?
No. sir; the legislative declaration that the
Southern people should not be permitted to
go into those Territories with theirslaves would
prevent a i emigration from the South until,
at least, tire final judicial determination of tire
ques iou should be obtained. -Meantime die
Territories would be filled up by free laborers,
and, in the exercise of that right which we all,
of tire Sombas well as the North, concede to
the people of the States, when, at tire pruper
time, they come, under the sanction oi Con
gress. to form their constitutions, to do so ac
cording to their own wishes—al that time, all
emigration from the South having been neces
sarily prevented by this legislative action, the
question of their rights would be decided ex
clusively by tire advocates of free labor. We
should be again in the condition we are in with
regard to California, and we should be told as
we now are with regard to it. Good gentle
men of the South, it is not Congress that
has prevented you from going to Califor-
i nra and eulablislFg Histitution.s there,
i it is the peoplu themselves.
r j California has fillU tip by emigration from :
»' the free States, li, ° people of tho ’
- I South have been from emigrating ;
> by the doubt th4wßr been thrown upon
' their rights to take slave pro-;
• porty. In this ina9Jtv!;Jie legislative prohibi-j
tion would and control the |
destiny of the which it should be :
applied as
lidity. even thought’/ igyalidity might subse
quently he establfehe Jthe proper tribunal, i
Now then, I in all fair >
ness: You assert to deny to us the •
privilege of carrying property into those i
Territories, you legislate
upon the advantage your
selves of the t of that legis
latino, even if in the ’! *h° u ld be pro
nounced invalid f le.-.l'y-'Arjr T Is there can
dor or manliness in it ? J® this that feeling up
on which you can reh the preservation of
this Union ? Yc H it is not held to
gether by the parehuir t which the con
stitution is writ.'- ; <now well that its
is
sou think that, : yfftii’aeives of your
numericalp act of inhibition on
the subject of slavery. _»«rga-ttiziiig the Go
vcrnincnjs which may be
e-. . ntuallyu « ; *.d, and thus
advantaging your>- -'lO interim of the
indtreci effect of suet you will la v
the foundations and good feeling ?
Do you think thui. in direct mode of
procedure, you are? those senti
ments of.affectFO’i fbr on which the
safety of the nation cjßkpds ? I address the
question to you wi-th’^B^i^'of deep concern,
but with perfect corrt.T-'- God knows th,a
on thh occa-ion L eme J P no desire to deal
And now, Mr. P - i of gentlemen
; who differ ftroii ire 10 allow us
■'oiftSo o oJ' 'inlwna: tt> .vhich it
becomes us to refer it more re iilily than to any
oilier. If the opinion of honorable Senators
who assert this power be correct, it will bear
the scrutiny to which I propose to subject it;
ifnot, I cannot believe that they would desire
lo adhere to it.
Well, now, sir, the South, as 1 have before
said, asserts the right of any citizen of the
United States to participate in die benefits of
all public property, and in the Territories of
the Union. It asseris this in relation to the
citizen of the slaveholding States as well as in
relation to those of the free States. That as
sertion necessarily includes the denial of the
right and power of Congress to pass any law
prohibiting them from emigrating into those
Territories and taking with them their pro
perty, of whatsoever sort, or to inUrpose any
legislative obstacle in their way.
Now. sir, there are other propositions in
volved in this statement It asserts, in the
first place, the right to participate in the com
mon territories of this Union. As a conse
quence it denies the power of Congress to in
terfere with the exercise of that right of the
citizens of the slaveholding States to emigrate
into these Territories with ’heir property,
nnn obstaulr., all laws which ate said to have
existed in Mexico inhibiting ilavery in those
Territories.
Mr. President, the first ofthese propositionsis
the right of the citizen of asluv«holding State to
participate iu the common territories of the
Union. That right is based uoon the equality
of the Stales. If they be canal in dignity, in
right; if they were so at the furmation of the
constitution, if nothing has intervened since to
produce an inequality, then the right which is
claimed rests upon the basis of their equality.
It is the inevitable consequence of it. You
can perceive that such an equality of rights
between the members of the Uaion must apply
nut only to actual possession at any given time,
but also all future acquisitions.
Mr. President, it is difficult to prove so self
evident a proposition as the equality es the
States of this Union at the formation of
this constitution. But let us for a moment
consider it. Thirteen independent States,
loosely connected by the articles of con
federation, with a view to form a more
perfect union, established this constitution.
That they were free and independent States
they have affirmed in tlieir declaration of inde
pendence, and they have maintained that dec
fetation by their wisdom in council and tlieir
gallantry in the field. That they were sove
reign Slates was recognised by the country of
which they were colonies, by a treaty in which
they were severally and by name acknow
ledged as free, sovereign/ jnd independent.
Well now, sir, their equality necessarily re
sulted from their sov«r< i jnly, as sovereignly
is correlative to equahty. ■ 1 do not know
whether, upon a question of this sort, it be
necessary to resort to aulhfrri its ; but Vattel
says:
■‘Since men aro naturally equal, and a
perfect equality prevails in tlieir rights and
obligations, as equally proceeding from naiure
—nations composed of mon, and considered as
: Mfate -
i>f' '
~ ’> •" V. 'I
A uwarf.asfru-w.il a
a)HNHHMHH|MfIaMMB9MRfr ; - ■
Stale than the most pa werM kingdom.”
The thirteen StateJ of this Union then
entered into the bond now unites us as
equals The consiiiutiotrfri the United States
recognises that equality as existing between the
States, not on'y by its grants, but also by its
re-ervations of power.
In the exercise of these their equal rights
they formed a cnnstilurion and established a
government to administer it. Now, is it to he
doubted —this is the inquiry which I would
address to the Senate—that a Government so
formed was to be conduced for the common
and equal benefit of all these equal and sove
reign States who formed it ? And I propound
to Senators who maintain*,e doctrine that they
have the right to inhibit Southern men from
emigrating to those terriiories with their pro
perty, whether that is such an administration
of the Government for the equal benefit of all
the sovereign independeu. States as was con
templated by the act of’heir union? If it be
said that such prohibition would be legally
inoperative and invalid, 1 reply as before that
the same result would be accomplished by such
legislation indirectly as if it were legally oper
ative and valid, and that therefore it is a
violation of the spiriL-of our government and
constitution.
Why, sir. I maintain and if it should be my
fortune to be called upon lo maintain it before
another tribunal. I would maintain there, that
au express provision in lire constitution inter
fering with the exercise of the equal right of
free citizens would ha.e been inconsistent
with that elementary pilnciple —the equality
of right—which is the basis upon which (he
constitution rested, and that it would for that
reason have been invaf.l and null and void.
[ would maintain, with even more confidence,
that sneb a principle, which lies at the very
foundation of the constitution, without which
it would never have been formed, cannot be
rendered ineffective by any implication of
power, derived from thi: instrument of which
it is the basis and foundation.
My propos tton is, therefore, that the equality
of right w liicti results frrnn the sovereignty and
consequer.t i quality of’tie States at the time
the constitution was formed, and which lies at
the foundation of that constitution, cannot be
destroyed by the exercise of any power, which
is of necessity derive*, by implication from
that constitution; in other words, that an im
plied power cannot destroy an elementary prin
ciple of Ute very constitution from which it is
derived. I rest, sir. the opinion that I entertain
as to me equality of right between the States
upon the principles I hive stated and the ob
servations 1 have made.
And now I come to the consideration of the
question of the power of Congress 11 pro
hibit slavery in the Territories With refer
ence to the sources from which that power is
derived, I have denied the existence of the
power, endeavoring to maintain that it will
conflict with a principle which lies at the foun
dation of the constitution —the principle of
1 to -v !i-
>-r ti.T-'iioiFftS. Jur/s.i.g 'O'irces
idiom wfoHrcc-H cd’sE* ll
t Wr«sf-1
; e.ltn at. «gr- is an
Iti street. I
In the various witieh hevt taken
place upon the question oi the power ol Con
gress to prohibit slavery in the Territories, al!
thofle who have argued in its support have
considered having ucumpiished
their object when they have shown the power
ot Congress to organize Governments for the
Terriiories vs the United States. They have
proceeded upon the principle that the power
to organize these governments (which of ne-
I cessity inchided a power on the part vs Con
I gross to legislate over Mie Territories, because
it was only by legislation that they could be
legitimately formed) would necessarily extend
this power of legislation to the inhibition of
slavery. I pray gewUamen to consider wheth
er the’ grasp of’ power which is asserted under
the establishment of tb» legiriative authority
to govern, has not been extended beyond its
legitimate limitsf I hear it said that Southern
men might invoke Co&gY«»sto exercise its pow
er to establish slavery by removing any obstruc
tions to it, and that the power to prohibit is cor
relative with the power to establish. Sir.it
seems to me that a moment s reflection will
convince honorable Senators that this is not
true.
In the first place, it assumes for the legisla
tive power unlimited extent ; it asserts a pow
er of unlimited legislation; which every man
will admit cannot
place, looking to the tact that the legislation of
Congress results in the establishment ol a law
which is to operate sub grariore lege, under
the constitution, itconionndsthese ideas—aleg
wlation bv Congress intended to facilitate the
eujoymeirt ofa right which ts derived from trie
constilutiou. and a iegislaiion by that body the
effect of which is to create obs. ructions in the
exercise of such a right- All will I think, agree
that although Congress may bare power to leg
islate over these Terriiories. it is not necessa
rily an unlimited power. Au exercise of this
power wil;occur t» every individual who
hears me which would be unquestionably be
yond its legitimate limits. It would not be
within the competeaey of Congress to establish
a despotism in those territories It would not
be within their competency to deny to a man
within these Territories lhe free exercise es
his religion. It would not be within tlieir pow-
er io establish within them tho system of Mex
ican peonage. The power there is not uu
; limited.
But Congress possess in many instances,
Ihe power of affirmative legislation over au ob
' ject. without having the power to legislate oyer
I it negatively. You can pass no laws abridging
the freedom of speech or of the press, deny to
' mi accused person the right of trial by jury in
. the common law courts, where the matter in
! dispute is over twenty dollars Now it is not
; to be doubted that, to facilitate to citizens the
J enjoyment of those rights, Congress may leg
islate affi matively, although the power to leg
' islate negatively is expressly denied by the con
i stitution This may serve to illustrate the po-
I sition for which I contend. First, that the
i proof ofthe power to establish a government,
which includes the idea of legislative power,
does not necessarily extend to the power which
is asserted in this discussion. Second, that
Congress may have the power to legislate affir
matvly, and might, to facilitate the exercise of
a constitutional right—the right to carry our
slaves into these territories—be legitimately
called upon for such legislation, for the pur
pose of removing any obstructions which may
exist to the enjoyment of it, while the power
so lo legislate aa to create obstructions to the
enjoyment of it would be denied to that body.
Now, I submit to the honorable Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Clay) that here is the true
equivalent of which he is in search. Ina com
promise each party may retain the opinion
which he had originally formed. He is not re
quired to sacrifice it, but he is required, retain
ing tliat opinion, to yield some portion of the
claim which he asserts under it, in considera
tion of some similar concession by his
nent; and that is the precise siate of things
which we are brought at this stage of the dis
cussion. We demand admission into these
territories with onr property of every descri^. ;
tion. We assert our right to go there. Th»
North denies this right, resists this chi p
tiren is
opmioiiE? tm; yon th SM-1
isla’e for the purpose of enforcing owl
Now, the true spirit of compromise w.Mn
suggest that the North should withd®aw
her demand for prohibition, and that the
should recede from her claim
islation. Each party will then stand upon nW'
rights as he asserts them, leaving their decis
ion to the common judicial arbiter of the
Union I repeat to the Senator from Ken
tucky tnat in these mutual concessions is to be
found the true spirit of compromise ; that it is
the equivalent of which he has been in search.
Mr. President, there is, I believe another and
important error upon this subject. It is the
source of the violent opposition of what is
called the extension of slavery, which, be it no
ted, is to reduce no human being to bondage
who is noi already in that condition, and of
which the effect is to make no man a slavehol
der. It arises from confounding the incidents
of a power with the principal power itself, and
determining upou the propriety ofits exercise,
by considerations which belong exclusively to
the incident. It is this which produced the im
passioned declaration of the Senator from Ken
tucky that no human power could compel him
to vote for ihe extension of slavery to a territo
ry where it did not now exist.
I repress the feeling which such a declaration
excites: but sir, it is a startling inference which
this avowal presents to the mind. What is it!
Slavery pollutes the land in which is exists.
No human power shall induce me to extend
this pollution to a soil that is now unstained
by it- It is this confusion of ideas—this
confounding of an incident with its prin
cipal in deciding upon the propriety of
exercising the principal power this be
lief that our opinions in regard to slavery
are alone to determine the mode of the exer
cise of that power, that in the discharge of our
public duty under this constitution we may
give scope and operation to our own pecu
liar speculative opinions ; it is from this course
that what is ailed the extension of slavery is
so persevering!/ resisted. Let us explain. If
it is shown or admitted that these States are
sovereign, and therefore equal; that they have
equal rights under the constitution ; that, in
order to the enjoyment of these rights, it is ne
cessary that Congress shall, by legislation, re
move certain obstructions which exist in the
Territories of the United States, it would follow
inevitably that Congress would be bound so to
exercise its powers, wiihout considering the
question of the guilt or innocence, the social
and political evils or benefits of domestic slave
ry, Its allowance would bean incident to the
principal power, which in the case supposed
would be so exercised in fulfilment of the in
junctions of the constitution The principal
object would be to organize a government.
The question would not be, whether slavery
should be allowed, but whether the rights of an
American citizen should be secured in these
Terriiories; whether a slaveholder, because
be was a slaveholder, and for that cause alone
would be excluded from them ? If this right
was affirmed, and it became necessary to re
move any obstructions to its enjoyment, the
removal of such obstructions would be an in
cident to the principal power which was ex
erted in affirmance of the right. And permit
un? to sir, with at ip ossiib-ip yespeer »hat, i f
stitiitironal righitffa eiiiz .?u to remove .with his
slave properly to a territory was ascertained,
and the existence of an obstruction to the en
joyment of that right should appear to exist
there,he who would refuse to exercise the power
with which the constitiuioii has invested him
for the purpose ofremoving these obstructions
would have to choose between his fealty tv
that constitution and the indulgence of his own
speculative opinions
[Mr. B. here gave way to a motion to post
pone the further consideration of the subject
until 10-morrow.J
Tuesday, February 12. 1850.
The same subject being again under con
sideration —
Mr. Berrien. I resume this discussion at
the point at which I left it yesterday, submit
ting to the Senate only one or two remarks ne
cessary to preserve the connexion ofthe argu
ment. I was engaged in the effort to demon
strate that Congress had no power to prohibit
slavery in the Territories. I had presented as
a consideration calculated to deny lo them that
power, the constitutional right of the people
of the United States. I had founded (hat right
upon the equality which was the elementary
principle of tire constitution, and deduced it
from the sovereign'y of the respective States.
My purpose now is, in further support of the
negative of this power to the Congress of the
United States, to advert to the principles of in
ternational law applicable to a question like
this, and then briefly to trace this power up to
ns source according to the several means by
which ii hts been derived, for the purpose of
showing, as well upon the principles of inter
national law applicable to a community of in
terest, as by reference to the sources of that
power, that this limitation is a necessary result.
It is said by Vattel:
“ When a nation in a body, lakes possession
of a country every thing that is not divided
among its members remains common to the
whole nation, and is called public property. —
Vattel, p. 109, s. 236.
So a community may acquire property by
conveyance:
“All the members of a corporation (I add.
all the citizens of a S ate) have an equal right
to the use of its common property ; but respect
ing the maner of enjoying it, the body of the
corporation (as the State) may make such re
gulations as they think proper, provided that
those regulations be not inconsistent with that
equality which ought to be preserved in a com
munion of property. Thus, a corporation may
determine the use of a common forest or pas
lure, either allowing it to all the members ac
cording to their wants, orallotting each one an
equal share; but they have not a right to ex
clude any one of the number, or to make a dis
tinction to his disadvantage, by assigning him
a less share than that of the others. ’
The slaveholders of the South are members
ofthe community, having equal rights with
others. You cannot exclude them from the
use ofthe public property which is common
to ail. You cannot make a distinction lo their
disadvantage by the prohibition of slave la
bor.
It is unfortunate for tho ergnmeui of tire
North, that the slaveholders of the South, not
withstanding the sin of slavery which attaches
to them, are by your consent a portion of the
community of the United States. They, with
you are entitled to equal rights. They with you
live under this constitution, with the full right
of using all the means which they deem neces
sary for the enjoyment of that portion of the
Union which they possess. You propose to
do what? Not to exclude them from this
Territory. Oh, no. The Territories of the
United States, gentlemen tell us, are open to
the South as well as to the North ; but you pro
pose, in the very words es this author. ‘‘ lo
make a distinction to tlieir disadvantage.” in
tin manner in which this public and common
property shall be used. While you “keep the
word of promise to the ear, you break it to
the hope.” You tell us—gw into these Terri
tories, they are free to you as to us. But in
order to secure to yourselves the exclusive en
joyment of that, you make a distinction to our
disadvantage, the inevitable result of which
you know will be to exclude us from all parti
cipation in that enjoyment. I beg Senators to
consider whether this be a proper exercise of
power in relation lo other matters than slavery
Will you revert your recollections to the pe
riod of our colonial vassalage to Great Britain ?
Will you remember the series of laws by
which (ilreat Britain sought to limit our efforts
to the cultivation of the soil, by which she de
signed to make the products of our labor ex
clusively agricultural, to be transported in the
form of raw materials only to her. Do you
believe that you possess such a power as that
in the territory of the United States? If you
chose to make California altogether an agricul
tural country, do yon believe that you could
inhibit the manufacturer of Massachusetts from
taking out and erecting and working his ma
chinery there? Do you believe that )ou could
inhibit the inhabitant of Maine or New Hamp
shire from constructing bis ships and navigat
ing them to whatever ports he might think
proper? Could you forbid one branch of in
dustry or another? You have just as much
and no more right to make a distinction to the
disadvantage of Massachusetts, New Hamp
shire or Maine, by inhibiting that peculiar in
dustry to which they are accustomed to direct
their productive labor, ns you have to make a
distinction injurious to the people of the South
’ by requiring that labor within the Territory of
California shall be exclusively free labor. So
this proposition stands upon the principle of
the law of nations, and upon the authority
which has been adduced.
Now, if you proceed to trace this power up
to its source, you will find that it is ascribed, in
tho first place, to that clause of the constitution
which authorizes Congress to make all need
ful! rulesand regulations—not for the govern
ment, as gentleman are in the habit of quoting
the clause-*-but needful rules and regulations
respecting the territory or other property oj
the United States; and secondly, to the propo
sition that, forasmuch as this public property,
the territory of the United Slates, ; s not within
the jurisdiction of any particular State, it must
of necessity be under the control ofthe United
States. The right to institute these govern
ments is traced next to the war-making, and
finally to the treaty-making power. A very
brief remark upon each of these will enable ine
to pass to that portion of the argument upon
which I desire more particularly to address the
Senate. If is scarcely necessary to discuss the
question with regard to the first power. The
whole article, as well as the particular terms
used, manifestly confines the power to be ex
ercised to the property of the United States—
obviously showing that the power to control
and regulate persons cannot be deduced from
the power to make rules and regulations re
specting property. The distinction is too broad
to escape the most careless observer. Again,
sir, notwithstanding the confidence with which
high judicial decisions have been spoken of, I
venture to say in this presence ihat this power
has never been exercised—l mean the power
organize a Territorial Government under
this <dause of the constitution ; and I ventvM
that ‘here is no judicial decis.on—ol
!' political essayists write so flippanffv
i ibei tiiere is no judicial decision upon a que#-’
' oi iisaahefare the court in yyhieb this po-'wa
no other source, this might
jpon Congress, in the exercise o|. i(f?
power) to govern, consequent upon the right
iotacqbire, and from the necessity of the thing,
Wghl rely.
With respect to the war-making power,
unquestionably territory might be acquired by
conquest, not conveyed by treaty. There may
be a continued hostile occupation unsupported
by a treaty of cession, which may, by lapse of
time, destroy the right of the conquered party,
the right of postliminium, and therefore the
fruits of conquest may be enjoyed without trea
ty. In that state of thiags, unquestionably, as
to territory acquired by the exercise of the
war-making power, the power to govern that
territory would be deduced from the same
source.
But, sir, speaking generally, almost univer
sally wars are terminated by treaty, and the
conquests are transferred to the acquiring pow
er by cession. The real source and origin of
this power, therefore, are to be found in the
the treaty-making power and its derivatives.
It might be implied as a necessary incident to
the power to make treaties, but it is more gen
erally the result of express stipulations made
in the exercise of that power. I shall be un
derstood by a brief explanation, and by (he ap
plication of it to the case before us. By he
power which yon have to enter into treaties
with foreign nations, you have acquired this
Mexican territory. If it were indispensable to
you to resort to the principle that the right to ac
quire gives you the right to govern, I agree
that the right might be deduced from that
source. But this is not necessary : for there is
in the treaty an express stipulation for the exer
cise of the power, which is equivalent to a
grant, under which we are not only authorised
Lilt bound to exercise it, since treaties, when
they are not in conflict with the constitution,
and when they are ratified by the competent
authorities of the nation, become the supreme
law of the land. In those treaties—in all of
those which are treaties of cession—the right to
receive the ceded territories is accompanied by
the stipulation to protect them in their per
sons and in their property, which can alone be
done by government. The power, then, to
govern a territory which is acquired by cession
of a foreign nation, is a power deduced from
the treaty by which that territory is acquired ;
which treaty, upon its ratification, becomes
the supreme law of the land.
And now, sir, 1 think you may see what is
the reason that there is no express grant in the
constitution to organize Territorial Govern
ments. That reason may b.e found in the fact
that there was no necessity for its existence
there. Cast your recollection back to the pe
riod when the constitution was adopted—con
sider what were the objecls upon which this
power to organize Territorial Governments
could be exercised. They were, first, the un
located territory of the United Slates. And
what was that ? The Northwestern Ter
ritory, the subject of the famous ordinance
of 1787. Now, in respect lo that territory, it
was a portion of the State of Virginia, subject
to the sovereign law of Virginia. While Vir
ginia held it, it was competent for her to or
ganize a government tliere: and when the
Confederation, if die Confederation had had
the power to receive the transfer, ihe
sovereignty which had been heretofore in
Virginia might have been exercised by the
Confederation. There is, I presume, scarce
ly a lawyer of the present day who sup
poses that the Congress of the Confedera
tion had the power to do what they did. But
validity was given to their act —not by the act of
Congress adapting the mere agency provided
by the ordinance to the state of things which
existed under the new constitution—not by
that or any other act of Congress, but by lire
clause of the constitution which declares that
contracts and engagements entered into by the
Government of the Confederation should be
obligatory upon the Government ofthe United
Slates established by the con-ttitiition. Here,
then, was a contract entered into between Vir
ginia and the Federal Congress which was ren
dered valid by a stipulation ofthe constitution
ofthe United Stales. From that transfer ot
tho sovereignty by Virginia, and this recogni
tion of it by tire constitution of the United
States, is derived the authority to organize gov
ernments in these Territories. When, there
fore, Congress have organized governments
for the several Territories parcelled out of the
North-western Territory, they have not acted
under the power which you are now calling
into exercise, but undar the power derived
from the transfer of the sovereignty of Virginia,
and the provision of the constitution of the
United States which gave validity to that act.
That disposes of the first class of Territorial
Governments organized by the United States,
those in the Northwestern Territory. Now,
with regard to the second —that is, Govern
ments which have been organized in Territo
nes which were heretofore portions of
different States ofthis Union, which were un
located at the time of the adoption of the con
stitution, aud which have, by subsequent ces
sion, been transferred to the United States.
Precisely the same principle was applicable to
them as in the case which I have oeen consid
ering. Georgia ceded to the United States an
extent of Territory which now constitute* the
two great States of Alabama and xMississippi.
While they remained under the sovereignty of
Georgia it was competent to her lo have or
ganized Territorial Governments within their
limits ; but she ceded them to the United States
and transferred, not merely the soil, but by the
express terms, the sovereignty and jurisdiction.
She did more. Sire stipulated for the or
ganization of Territorial Governments within
those Territories. This was therefore suffi
cierr. authority for establishing Territorial Gov
ernments in the Territories of Mississippi and
Alabama, and in Tennessee, which was Terri
tory ceded frurn North Carolina to the United
States, and was in like condition
Then there rem tins the other class of Terri
torial Governments, organized upon Territory
acquired by the United States from foreign
Powers, and for the organization of Govern
ments within those Territories it was always
competent co the United States to do whatever
was necessary for the fulfilment of its treaty
stipulations, which, by the act of ratification,
became the supreme law of the land.
I suggest to you. then, sir, that this alone
furnishes a sufficient explanation without re
sorting to the supposition that our ancestors did
not anticipate the future extension of the limits
of the Republic, why there was no express
power to organize Territorial Governments
contained in the constitution —namely that the
grant of au h power was wholly unnecessary
that with regard to the unlocated Territory of
the United States, that which was within its
iiinita at the time of the formation of the con
stitution, it was competent for the Govern
ment of the United Slates lo establish Govern
ments by virtue es the transfer of the sove
reignty of Virginia, and the recognition of (he
validity of that transfer aa an engagement of
the former Government by Hie constitution of
the United States; that in relation to territory
within the limits of particular states, the same
power was acquired by the cession and trans
fer of sovereignty of the ceding States. And
with regard to such territory as should be ac
quired from foreign nations, it was competent
to the Government ofthe United States to es
tablish Teiritorial Governments in virtue of
treaty stipulations which they were authorized
to make and bound to execute.
I have endeavored to show, sir, that the pow
er which it is proposed to exercise and which
these resolutions contemplate—the power to
prohibit slavery in the Territories—is not one
which can be derived from either of the sour
ces which I have stated, and that there is no
just deci*ion or legislative precedent in the
organization of Territorial Governments which
will su?tain the exercise of such a power.
But, sir, it i? attempted to res: this assump
tion of authority upon certain legislative pre
cedents unconnected with the organization of
ihe territorial governments. It is said that
Congress can prohibit slavery in the territories
in the organization of territorial governments,
and that they have already exercised this power
in several instances.
The first which I have seen stated is the act
of 1798, forbidding the importation of slaves
into the Mississippi territory from without the
limits of the United States. If Senators will
call to their recollection the discussions which
have been bad upon this subject, they will re
member that ibis enactment lias been greatly
relied upon by those who asserted the exis
tence of this power and urge its application to
the territory for which governments have now
to be organized. They will recollect that when
Congress, iu 1798, prohibited the importation
I have endeavored to show, sir, that the pow
er which it is proposed to exercise and which
these resolutions contemplate—the power to
prohibit slavery in the Territories—is not one
which can be derived from either of the sour
ces which 1 have stated, and that there is no
just decision or legislative precedent in the
organization of Territorial Governments which
will sustain the exercise of such a power.
But, sir, it i> attempted to res: this assump
tion of authority upon certain legislative pre
cedents unconnected with ihe organization of
ihe territorial government?. It is said that
Congress can prohibit slavery in the territories
in the organization of territorial governments,
and that they have already exercised this power
in several instances.
The first which I have seen stated is the act
of 1798, forbidding the importation of slaves
into the Mississippi territory from without the
limits of the United States. If Senators will
call to their recollection the discussions which
have been bad upon this subject, they will re
member that ibis enactment lias been greatly
relied upon by those who asserted the exis
tence of this power and urge its application to
the territory for which governments have now
to be organized. They will recollect that when
Congress, iu 1798, prohibited the importation
. L.LXIV--NEW SERIES VOL.SXIV -NO. 10.
o of slaves from withoitlbe li<nits oi the United
•f States into the territory of Mississippi, the in
y hibition in the constitution of the United States
which forbade interference with the importa
p lion of slaves into ihe Stales, under certain cir.
n camstarices specified in the clause, until 180 d,
n was still in full force.
And now the point of inquiry is this: was
- this the exercise ofthe power which you now
g contemplate, or of a totally distinct and dis
s ferent power? I affirm the last. Congress
f has power to regulate the foreign and donres-
- tic commerce of the United Sta ea. The pow
, er to inhibit the importation of slaves from
n abroad was a power which was restricted until
it the year 1808; and the exercise of that power
d in 1798 by Congress was justified upon the
- ground that that inhibition did not extend to
d the prohibition of the importation of slaves in
y to a territory. Those who choose to refer to
□ the words of the constitution will find a justifi
i cation of Congress in these terms t “The nii
e gration or importation of such persons as any
b of the States now existing shall think proper to
a admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress
4 prior to the year 1808.” What then? Why,
- simply that Congress was not inhibited by this !
- clause of the constitution in the exercise of the
I power to regulate the foreign commerce of
a the United Stales, nor in so doing from pro
i- hibiting the foreign slave trade iu the territory
d of Mississippi, But Congress did not ven
, tore to exercise the power to prohibit the set
i tier from emigrating to the territory, and tak
s ing his slaves with him, for domestic purposes,
r and establishing his domicil there. The act of
r 1804 prohibited the introduction of slaves into
r Louisiana, from within or without the United
The act of 1804 also passed anterior
i IJu Hre removal of the inhibition of the consti-
- ? against interference with the slave trade.
r 4 was in the exercise of the same
< rcial power of the Government, which
■ I Vi
i purpose ofsaies, and not to prohibit Che intro
t dttftllf nby and for the use of the emigrant.—
’ is reserved. The right of the set
emigrate there with his slaves is ex
allowed. The acts of 1807, 1808, and
' 1809, every body will at once understand,
' were acts passed for the purpose of exercising
i the powers just then relieved from the fetters
f which the constitution had imposed upon Con
, gress, restraining it from inhibiting the foreign
! slave trade.
The next thing to which we are frequently
) referred in discussion here, is the Missouri
> compromise. That compromise, we are told,
t was sustained by Southern as well as Northern
i men; that it was an admission of the power
of this Government to inhibit the introduction
• of slavery into the Territories, because, by it,
slavery is inhibited north of the prescribed
line; and that the power to prohibit it in
any portion of the territory is an admission
of the power to prohibit it in all territory.
Mr. President, in relation lo that subject, I
take it for granted (I was almost about to say)
that gentlemen who use that argument do ;iot
deceive themselves into a belie I that the power
which was exercised in the Missouri compro
mise, was understoo 1 by those who sustained
it to be in any sense within the constitution.
In what was considered a great crisis, mena
cing dangers of a serious nature, they felt that
they were authorized, under tire pressure of the
occasion, to assume the power which they
exercised, relying upon the good sense, in
telligence, and patriotism of ihe people, to
justify the assumption—a power which the
constitution did not confer, and which they
had no specific authority to exercise In other
words, sir, I consider that the Missouri com
promise was admitted under the influence of
the principle salus publica supremo, lex. It is
a principle upon which, desiring always, as
far as it may be in my power, to keep within
’ tne authority of the constitution, I should not
hesitate to slake myself in a case like that
which w’as then presented, or like that which is
now presented. While I believe, with all the
earnestness and all the force of conviction
which my mind is capable of entertaining, that
Congress possesses no such power as that
which is claimed, yet, if I con’d see a prospect
of peace by consenting to a line of division on
i the two sides of which these conflicting opin
ions might be indulged by those entertaining
i them, without disturbing each other, I would
cheerfully commit myself to a like exercise of
power, with a perfect understanding that I had
no authority to do so upon any other principle
than that which I have stated.
Now, sir, if the power which we are consid
ering, to organize governments in the Territo
ries, cannot be deduced from either of the
three first sources to which I haye referred, but
is derived from the treaty-making power, then
it is either an implied power, and rests upon the
principle that no itnplcation can destroy that
elementary principle of equality which entitles
every citizen of the United States to au equal
participation in the territory acquired, or it is
an express power derived from the stipulations
of the treaty by which the Territories were
a< quired, and thou it is limited by the terms of
! which it was conferred. It is a power which
is conferred in terms for the protection of the
citizens in their persons and property, and can
not be extended beyond those limits lo inter
fere with the essential rights which belong to
every member of this Confederacy-
Mr. President, that 1 may not unnecessarily
trespass upon the time ofthe Senate, I will now,
with their indulgence, proceed lo the considera
tion of a question which has been briefly discuts
edtiere already this morning. I mean the ques
tion whether a citizen of the United Slates
who is the owner of slaves has the right to
remove with them into the Territories of the
United States; more specifically, sir, whether
a citizen of the United States has the right to
I remove with his slaves into the Territories of
California and New Mexico ?
Now, sir, as a general proposition, personal
property attends the person of the owner, and
i carries with it the rights which pertain to him
where he may happen to be. But it is said that
slavery exists only by virtue of the positive
law of the State which tolerates it; that it
cannot exist beyond the limits of that State,
and especially that it cannot do so in the Ter
ritories of California and New Mexico, be
cause there are existing laws there which inhibit
it.
Sir, if it be possible, with the indulgence of
the Senate, to show that these propositions are
untrue —ihat neither of them can be maintained
—we shall have taken away from those who de
ny the right for wh ca I am contending the on
y ground upon which they have hitherto at
tempted to rest it, and honorable Senators
must assign some new reason for the denial
to the South of the right which I am asserting
—that of removing into those Territories with
their properly of every description.
I will inakea brief remark upon each of those
propositions The first of them is that slavery
exists by force of positive law and consequent
ly can only exist within the limits of the State
enacting that law. Mr. President, I really feel
some hesitation in yielding to the belief that it
is necessary, in the presence of the American
Senate, lo repeal that this proposition is utter
ly unfounded in historical fact. There was not
a Britisli colony in which slavery existed and
into which it was introduced by authority of
law. Slavery existed in every one of the Brit
ish American colonies, without being sustained
by statue. Statute lawscan be fouud regulating
a pre-existing slavery ; but statute laws cannot
be found authorizing its introduction. What
then ? Slavery does not depend upon statute
Jaws, because it existed before there were any
such laws authorizing its existence.
In Massachusetts slavery existed at a very
early period without any statute authorizing it.
Nay, slavery in Massachusetts was not confined
to Africans. Tire aborigines of the country
were reduced and held iu slavery, and were
shipped from their ports and sold as slaves.
How then ? if this depended upon the law of
Massachusetts, was there any such law which
authorized the reduction of Indians to slavery,
the transportation of them to tbe West Indies,
and the sale of them there? If there were,
did the venders mean to receive the purchase
money fur properly which, neither under their
own laws nor under any other, they bad a right
lo hold ? To prove this, sir, consult their own
writers.
In my own State slavery did not exist at the
time of the settlement of the colony It was
a government of trustees, instituted for liberal,
charitable, and benevofent purposes, for a long
time resisting the introduction of slaves, under
tbe belief that the labor which they wished to
carry on could be more advantageously con
ducted by white men. Experience taught them
the reverse ; aud such was the pressure upon
that Government that they found it necessary
to surrender their authority to the monarch,
aud a royal Government was established. But
even then slavery was not established by statue
was not authorized by statute. It was many
years after slavery existed in Georgia that you
will find the first law on rhe statute book recog
nising and regulating the exiotiug institution,
not introducing and establishing it.
Now, this is true in regard to all the States
in which slavery exists, that there was uo law
authorizing its introduction. It depended up
on something beyond the limit of the State
and consequently was not confined to the lim
its of a Slate, if any body shall desire to trace
the history of the introduction of slavery into
the United States, it will be found to have re
’ suited from the cupidity of the English African
Company ; and those unfortunate Africans
’ who have so awakened the sympathy of tire
‘ people of the United States, especiallv those
‘ of the free States, that, under its influence,
• they are ready to trample upon the rights ol
others, and even upon the constitution itself,
will be found to have been in their native land,
for the most part, in a state of the mpsl abject
*' slavery, h might have happened in one in
» .sauce out of a thousand, that a free African
’ i was subjected lo he vioience ofthe power en-
• I gaged tn the siave trade; but I say upon the
r authority of a writer of established reputation
I — a citizen of a free Stale—(l refer lo Mr.
1 . Ba: croft s work upon the colonies, now open
9 ’ before tne)— that the slaves which were
- brought from Africa were persons who were
• convicted ofcrirnes, and reduced to slavery by
1 way of punishment—persons upou whom
- lines were inflicted, and who were sold into
f slavery from their inability to pay such “•*«*
' and persons born in a state ofslavery. On the
’ authority of the same writer. 1 state that t.rree
' fourths of those persons, imported from Alrl
-1 ca, aud here held in slavery, were in a state of
1 Use moat abject slavery in their own county
They were the sieves of petty African ehtefe
—they and their children. And then the vvm
paths which has been awakened on thia sub
ject may find some alleviation by pursuing the
i nquiry whether the slave of a heathen chief in
a barbarous land has much cause to lament his
removal to a Christian community, and his sub
jection to the moderated domestic slavery
which exists within the United Stalest
whether such a removal rendered the condi
tion of the transported slave so much worse as
to justify the attempts which have been made
to produce an excitement that shakes this
Union to its centre?
I wan speaking of the proposition which as
serts that slavery exists only by law, and is
limited to the State in which it exists. I know
that this is the doctrine laid down in Massa
chusetts and Connecticut; but 1 think it is ut
terly impossible, with all the respect which
may be entertained for the learned judges by
whom these opinions were pronounced, for
any man to read the reports of them without
being sensible of the influence (I have no
doubt unconsciously) operating upon the
minds of the judges who rendered them, from
their own particular opinions, of the unlaw
fulness ofslavery. What is the principle laid
down then? It is this, namely, that a negro
or slave, when he escapes from hie master and
comes within the State of Massachusetts or
Connecticut, is to be delivered up in obedi
dnee to the constitutional provision on the
subject of fugitive slaves ; but that a slave who «
comes with that master, wlio is voluntarily
brought within their limits by his master,al
though not for the pnrpose of residence, bitt
transiently passing through thas3ta*.e in the
exercise of his right as an American citizen—
that such slave is instantly emancipated from
the bonds of slavery in which ho is held its the
slaves of persons of the United Slates, passing
transiently through her limits, is arightwhich
cannot be admitted until it is affirmed by a
higher tribunal than that by which it has been
decided.
Mr. President, the true I ap
prehend, is this: Slavery exists in the State
in which the owner dwells—it exists out of the
State in which the owner dwells—once ex
isting it exists every where until it comes
within the limits of a sovereignly which inhib
its it. I will not trouble the Senate with re
ference to authorities; but the proposition is
so well laid down by the Supreme Court of
Louisiana that I present to you the following
extract (rom it:
“ Slavery, notwithstanding all that may have been
said and written against it, as being unjust, arbitrary,
and contrary to the laws of human nature, we find in
history to have existed from the earliest ages of the
world down to the present day. In investigating the
rights of the parties now before the court it is deemed
unnecessary to inquire into the different means by
which one part of the human race have in alt ages
become the bondmen of the other, such as captivity,
being the offspring of those already enslaved, &c.
&c. However, we are of opinion that it may be
laid down as a legal axiom that in all Governments
in which, the municipal regulations are not abso
lutely opposed to slavery, persons already reduced
to that state may be held in it, and wo also assume
it as a first principle that slavery has been permitted
and tolerated in all the colonies established in Ameri
ca by European Powers, most dearly as relates te
blacks and Africans,” &c.
After stating that this accounts for the ab
sence of any legislative act of European Pow
ers for the introduction of slavery into their
American dominions, the Court adds:
“ If the record of any such act exists we have not
been able to fine auy trace of it.”
Now, sir, applying this doctrine to the ques
tion under consideration, persons brought to
the United States from the coast of Africa, who
according to the laws existing there—for there
are laws—and classes or castes even in that bar
barous country who were in a state of slavery
the re,are, on the principle of the decision of the
Supreme Courtof Louisiana, slaves here; that
is, the relation existing between master and
slave created upon the coast of Africa contin
ues until the latter comes within a Territory
whose municipal laws prohibit it.
And here I want the attention of the Senate
for a moment to that clause of the constitution
which relates to the delivery of slaves, and to
its bearing upon the particular point we are
now considering. You will observe, sir, that
that question is whether the property of an
owner in his slave can exist beyond the limits
of the Slate in which the owner dwells, and
under the authority of whose laws he is sup
posed to hold it. Tne clause referred to has
an important bearing upon the question. It is
iii these words:
t u No person held to service or labor in one Slate,
under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall,
in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be
discharged from such service or labor, but shall be
delivered up on claim of the parly to whom such ser
vice or labor may be due.”
Such person ‘’shall not be discharged,"
though he is beyond the limits of that State
th” eurbority of wboe” t-isvs he Mertppe
st d, and under that authority alone, to be held in
slavery. Although lie is without the reach of
that authority by which, and by which alone,
Im owes service and labor to his owner, yet still,
under this pro-i ion of the constitution of the
United States, he shall not, in consequence of
any law or regulation of any other State, be
discharged from such service or labor. tVhy,
sit, if the propyoilion were true against which
1 am contending, that the slave, whether by liis
own will or by the act of his master, the mo
ment he goes beyond the limits of the State
whose laws authorize him to be held in slavery,
is released from his fetters—if that proposition
is true, the provision of the constitution must
have been expressed in very different terms.
It would not have been necessary for the Con
vention to have provided, and they would not
have provided, that the fugitive should not be dis
charged from his service and labor in conse
quence of a law of that State into which he
escaped, for he would have been already dis
charged; not that he should be delivered up
on claim of the person to whom such service or
labor was due; for they could not have recog
nised the principle that it was in fact due. us the
mere fact of his having passed the boundary
of the Slate in winch he was held in slavery
would have released him from that debt. The
Convention did not so consider the matter.
They held that the slave, notwithstanding he
did gel beyond the limits of the State in
which his master dwell, under the authority
of whose laws he was held iu bondage, was
still a slave, and so they have provided, not
that he should be restored to a service and labor
from which he had been discharged or released,
but that ho should not be discharged or released
from an actuallu subsisting debt of service and
labor in consequence of any laws or regula
tions of the State into which he had escaped,
but should be delivered up on the claim of that
party to whom such service or labor may be
due, thus recognising an actuall subsisting
present debt of service and labor beyond the
limits of me State which authorized it.
And still further, although the slave escaped
into a sovereignty inhibiting slavery, and be
yond the Stale in which his master dwelt, yet
the constitution recognises the owner’s title,
even in the sovereignty so inhibiting it, to that
property derived solely under the laws of a
Stale beyond whose limits the slave had passed.
Now, if the constitution of the United States
recognises the title of the owner not merely
within the limits of his own State, as has been
the argument addressed to us here, but within
the limits of sovereign Stales which inhibit
slavery—if I have the right to go within the
sovereign Slate which so inhibits it and claim
my property which I hold under the laws of
my own State, I have a question to propose
which I ask may be answered, not in the strife
of debate, nor with tbo feelings excited in a
contest for victory in a discussion of this sort
—nor yet to me or to the Seuate, but 1 ask
every Senator to answer it to himself iu the
quiet retirement of bis closet, communing with
(rod and his own conscience: If the constitu
tion of the country recognises my title to the
slave within my Stale, beyond my Slate, and
within a sovereign State that inhibits slavery,
does it forbid, does it deny that title within a
territory that is the common property of the
United Stales 1 If Mexican laws extinguish
passed
Connected with this subject of the recovery
of fugitive slaves, there is one consideration
which, in due time, will probably attract the
attention of the Congress and the Government
of the United States. Looking to t!>o obliga
tion which the United States have assumed,
their constitutional engagement to see that
fugitive slaves shall be restored to thnir own
ers, and to the decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United State,s that this provision
takes the subject from the jurisdiction of the
several States, thus making it exclusively an
obligation on the part of the Goveswoient of
the United States," one which they alone are
bound to fulfil, because, according to thatde
c eion, they alone have the power to fulfil it, it
will become a question, in all probability be
fore a great lapse of time, how far the Cull*
greis of the United Stales is or is not obliged,
if they do not provide ample means for the re
cover, of fugmve slaves, io redeem the pledge
which is given in that clause by making com
pensation for the slave* who are prevented
train being restored by means of mobs and
other unwarrantable devices which obstruct
their recovery in the free States.
I turn to the consideration of the existence
and obligation of Mexican laws in the Terri
tories of California and New Mexico. That
is the second point, it is said that even if we
had a right to carry our slaves beyond the
Inn its of the States, and if these rights were
attendant upon our persons wherever we go,
yet when we come within the limits of Cali
fornia and New Mexico these rights would
cease, because there are there Mexican laws
which forbid slavery within these limits, and
that these laws are obligatory upon us. Sir. it
11 easy in general terms to assert propositions
of law and of fact which it becomes very diffi
cult to establish when the proof is required.
I'he proposition, in the first place, is, that the
laws of Mexico forbid the existeneeof slavery ;
that there were laws of Ibis description exis
ting io Mexico at the lime of the transfer of
these territories to the United States, loen
the proposition proceeds with the assertion of
tile obligatory powers of these laws upon us.
Che first is. in some sort, a question o( tact.
I am very well aware of the decree of the
Dictator, by which slavery was declared to be