Newspaper Page Text
FU1LMHBD BVMT TOMDAV,
*T
TUOS. RAGLAND * 6. W. HARDWICK,
♦ p nor ai kior».
ASSIST ID IN THE EDITORIAL DllARTMINT
■f
I. Ws PLOVUTOYt
TERMS—'Turks Dollars per mnnara, payable mm-
r,aUf in atvaace far row subscripuuns.
No Paper will be di«conliu«e4 while any arrearage in
doe, unlew at the option of the publbhere; and roua
dollars wiU # i* all rose*, he exacted where payment is
not made before the expiration of the subscription year.
advertisements
Conspicuously inserted at ore dollar par one bundled
words, for the first insertion, and riFTtr cent* for
every subsequent continuance. A square in the En
quirer is the space of eleven line* in small type, con
taining. a-* it does, one hundred word*.
All ADVRaTiaRMRMTs sent to u* without specifying the
number of m-eruon* desired, will he continued until
ordered out. and diarged accordingly.
Legal Advertisements published at the wual rates
and with -tri'-t attention to the rpqtfWtfotw of the law.
Siir.atrrs* Rales under regular execution mu*t lie ad-
vertiseJ forTiuaTV dat« before the day of «ale; under
m-irtgugc fi. ia ., siXTf daVs before the day of sale.
Sales of Laud and Negrue*. by Executor*. Adminis
trator* or Guardians for aiXTV oats before the day
of «ale
Iales of
before the day <1
Citations by Clerks of the Courts of Ordinary, upon
application for leUars of administration, must be pub
lished for tiiirtt dat«.
Citations upift application for letters of dismission, by
Executor*, Administrators or Guardians, monthly for
six months.
Os.dcrs of Court" of Ordinary, (accompanseu by a copy
of the Irani *r agreement.) to make Titles to Land,
must he published three month*.
Nonets by Ev.cuuir or Administrator* Or u*.
of application to the Court ofOrdftiaiT fo-1 >ave toscdl
T..n fur Negroes of an estate, rota months.
Notices by Executors or Administrator-, to the Debtors
and Creditors of an estate, for six weens.
KT’ Betters to the E litnr* oa ba«tne*s, must be post
paid, to entitle them to attention.
.
A STRICT CONSTRUCTION OP THE CONSTITUTION—AN HONEST AND ECONOMICAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT*
VOLUME XXI.
COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, TUESDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER 5. 1848.
NUMBER 38.
SPEECH OF
SR. BER81 El, OF GEORGIA,
ON THE PROPOSED COMPROMISE BILL
In Senate July 26, 1819.
Mr. President: It is with greatreluctancothat
1 consent to occupy the time of the Senate, even
dtaonasion in this* chamber, on the footing which
they stand under the constitution and lawn. When
a case arises under these, the Court, in the exer
cise of its ippropfiate jurisdiction, will take cog
nizance of it; hut this would be equally true if
you were to legislate on the subject. Vou will
iiot deprive that court of jurisdiction, or impose it
upon them, by legislating or by refusing to legis
late. If we abstain, it is because experience has
taught us, in the course of this protracted discus
sion. that we cannot come to any satisfactory re
sult by legislating on the subject of slavery in these
Territories.
And now, having stated, and 1 hope satisfacto
rily answered, the minor objections to this hill, I
proceed to present my own it is by no means
acceptable to me, sir. If i Ird been free to chaos* a f
the r.gills of my constituents should have been
o' iC 'J bn a very different footing. The fact that a
G'iardian*| Bonthern planter cmi^rittng to one of these Ter
ritories, and currying with him his slave property,
is liable to be harra^ied by vexatious litigation,
communes a serious objection. The disposition
to acquiesce in a bill containing such a provision,
is an evidence of the strength us well us the sin
cerity of our desire to adjust this unhappy contro
versy. I have yielded my assent to it, trom the
consideration that a decision in a single case
would settle finally the principles applicable to all;
and that tlmt decision maybe piouiptly had.—
Questioning, as 1 do, the power of Congress to
legislate on the subject of slavery, the prousions
in this bill in relation to the Territory of Oregon
are by no means acceptable to me, and, standing
alone, would not have received my vote. As pari
fc’ a very brief period, att this late hour of thenght, j 0 f a measure of peace and conciliation, they are
an f after so tong and laborious a pitting, fn
ing this, sir, I yield to the wishes of others, rather
than consult tny own inclination, and will esteem
myself particularly fortunate, if, after the very dis-
cu-rive debate which has taken place, I can recall
the attention of the Senate to the real q ^stion
which t! s bill proeenta for onr consideration.—
Tins will be accomplished inth» siinplestmnn-
nn\ by recurring to the state of the debate on the
Oregon Bill at the moment when the select coin-
mitteewaa raised, and the motives then openly
avowed as Influencing the Senate in raising it.
Sir, we h id before ns a bill providing for the
government of the Territory of Oregon, in which
there was contained a provision which assent'd
indirectly the power of Congress to legislate on
the subject of slavery, and to inhibit its existence
in a Territory. I advert to this fnrt as well for the
purpose o! recalling it to the recollection of the
Senate, as to repel an assertion which has been
reiterated in the course of this discussion, that it
has been pfovoked by the South ; and I avail my-
§elf of the occasion to say that such an imputa
tion it entirely inconsistent will) the fact. A brief
reminiscence will prove the truth of this asser
tion. The Territorial Committee presented to us
a bill for the establishment of a government in
Oregon, and Senators pressed upon us the consid
eration that the condition of that people impera
tively demanded the protecting arm of this Gov
ernment. We of the South replied to you, Give
to Oregon such government as her necessities re
quire, but do not taunt us by the useless assertion
of a power which can have no practical opera
tion there. The provision in relation to slavery
was inserted into this bill for one of two purposes:
It wis either a iranlnn exercise of power to accom-
plilh no legitimate object, or it was introduced to
acquire the authority if precedent for the exertion
i relai
presented to me in a different aspect, i know tli
deep interest which is fell on this subject-—how
much il concerns us a II hut it should become ami
cably adjusted. In uie history ot all Governments
cases have occurred which were not contemplated
and were not therefore provided lor by the organ
ic law. This, 1 think, is such a case, and hading
that the safety ot the people is the supreme law ;
that the continued agitation of thi* question may
endanger the peace and harmony of tho Union,
I yield tny constitutional scruples to the ardent de
sire which 1 feel to test the efficacy of this meas
ure as one of peace and conciliation.
Even this poor boon we are not permitted to ac
cept. Tho Senator from Ohio, (Mr. Corwin) de
clares that, with his consent, no Southoru matt
sh ill be allowed to emigrate to any one of the ter
ritories of the United States, taking with him his
slave property. Thu inhibition applies not only
to the present, but all future time; not merely to
territory already acquired, but to whatever may
bo acquired hereafter. Whether the acquisition
bo made by conquest or by purchase, the blood and
treasure of the South must ho contributed in their
fill proportion, but all right of participating is to
be uotiied them. The Senator does indeed admit
that what is acquired by rapacity and military vio
lence, may lie subject to distribution, on tho prin
ciple of “honor among thieves”—rather, it would
seem, for the purpose of giving scope to his an
athema against the mode of acquisition, than from
an^r deference of Southern rights. Nevertheless,
it is an admission which authorizes me to inquire
if the opinions of that Senator as to the mode in
which the territories of New Mexico and Califor
nia were acquired, have undergone a change ?—
He voted with me in favor of the resolution which
I submitted to the Senate, us an amendment to the
three million bill, and a gainst the bill itself, fie
voted with mo to strike out that part of the boun
dary in the treaty with Mexico which gave these
territories to the United States; and foiling in
these inodes of resistance, he voted with me a-
gainst the treaty itself. In all these cases wo as-
sorted that the object of the Administration was to
coerce Mexico to submit to this dismemberment
by the terror of our arms *, that it would be an ac
quisition b* conquest, which was alike hateful to
us both. lias he changed this opinion t Does
ho believe now that these territories have been
of the same power in relation to New Mexico and
California. We said to yon omit this provision,
which is admitted to be useless so far as the peo
ple of Oregon are concerned, and you m ay pass I
the bill with whatever speed you choose to give to 1
it. Your refusal imposed upon us the necessity of
moving to strike out the section relating to slavery,
and thus this discussion originated. It is the North
then, and not the South, which must be responsi
ble for any consequences which may result from it.
The debate proceeded, and various discordant
propositions were presented to the Senate. North
ern Senators asserted the uncontrolled, unlimited
p )wer of Congress to legislate for tho Territory
Wc denied the existence of dial power in tho ex
tent which was claimed for it. They maintained , , .. r , r r ,
that, even in the alienee uf legislation by Congress j """ « rc " lMl '*- v ,orco ofarm. from a feeb
slavery could not exist in Onion, because, ns they ! c -‘ l “. t 11 “ »“ “fT^'on '‘X
contended, il is an institution contrary to Nature, 1 llKJ “ l,B, “ lon of *<-’ 8e"«°r Jc-mroys I
existing only by statute, and therefore necessarily
local. Wo questioned the correctness of this po
sition; but we said to our opponents, if you have
confidence in your opiniou that slavery cannot ex-
\ 1 ist whore it is not protected by positive statute, act
I U|kmi your couvictinn; forbear to legislate; strike
Ibis provis.on from the bill, and it wi!l piss with-
I 1 out opposition from the South. Gentlemen were
unwilling to rely upon their own repeatedly avow-
. c l convictions. They insisted upon legislating
where they asserted that legislation was unneces-
’ sury, and, as a consequence, therefore admitted
‘f that it was useless.
9 in the midst of this protracted discussion, the
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton,) actuated
* ^by motives which found a cordial response from a
1 majority of the Senate, proposed to raise the so
iled committee, the result of whose labors is Ira*
ifore you. And now, sir, 1 inquire for w ha* pur
pose was that committee raised, if it was nnt with
the hope of avoiding this exciting discussion on
the subject of slavery If we could have antici
pated the rlieioric tl displays, alike violativo of truth
aud decorum, which have been exhibited in this
discussion; if we could have foreseen that the
occasion would have been seized upon to utter de
nunciation against this institution, which, if true,
had for consenting to raise this committee t Sir, ”* r * LGRWIV I did not suppose the Senator
I had hoped, I continue to hope, notwithstanding ■ ^ ro,n Georgia could hfivo so misunderstood my
the opposite feeling heretofore manifested iu this 1 meaning in the manner in which I presented the
debate that the attention of the Senate will he di-, contrast referred to. All that I said on this sub-
recced, not to extravagant, distorted, unfounded J ecl was to prevent the necessity ot watching these
»— ^ iation to slavery, hut to the ques-' *I AV<W » •»» l,, c form °* illustration, in a playful way.
fairly acquired by purchase ? that they have been
freely yielded by Mexico ? that they have not been
extorted by the terror of our arms l Or does he
still believe, as he was wont to do, that they have
feeble repub-
t ? If so,
the argu
ment, and renders quite harmless the sentimental
and vituperative rhetoric with which ho has assail
ed the rights of the South.
1 have l>een gratified by the reply which the
Senator from Ohio lias been enabled to give to the
inquiry addressed to him by the Senator from Ma
ryland, (Mr. Johnson,) that he is unconscious of
Uuving used the language attributed to him by
that Senator, and that, if used,(as it certainly was)
he now disclaims it. Having entertained senti
ment* of respect and good will for the Senator
from Ohio, he will add to my gratification if ho is
entbfod also to disclaim, or willing to recall,
anotner portion of In* remarks. In speaking of
slavery as it existed in tlie Southern States, I ad
verted to the affection which subsisted between the
colored nurse und the child committed to her care.
The Senator was pleased to speak of that portion
uf my remarks in terms of eulogy, und as having
fora moment beguiled his gudginent and led him
to believe that tbis wu* indeed the patriarchies!
institution which it was represented to he. He pro
ceeded u> sty that he was awakened from his de
lusion by the inquiry ol the Senator trom Florida,
(.Mr. Westcolt.) in relation to the power of Uie
territorial legislatures, under tnu provisions of this
bill, to establish jtatrol laws, which, he said, were
enacted iu the south,“ to prevont these affection-
caionmies in relation to” slavery, but to the ques
tions presented by this bill—the mode of concilia
tion which il proposes.
Mr. Presid&t, there are some minor objections
to this bill, to which I will first very briefly adv *rt
It ia said that the boundaries of New Mexjco have
nut yet been definitely settled, and that until thisU
accomplished it i* improper to establish a govern
ment for that Territory. Sir,the answer is a plain
.Mr. BLKKIL.N’. Mr. President, I leave tins
part of the subject with a single remark : that such
h vity was, in my judgment, nnsuited to the oc-
chs.<>n; that the wit wnich sparkles, is that which
iullicU no wound,and that calumny is not divest
ed of it* odious character because it ia uttered in
the form of sarcasm.
w _ r Let us pass to the consideration of the tnoreim-
one. The terms of this bill arc equally applies- ; portunt grounds of opposition to this hill. The
ble to that Territory, whether it bo of Lrger or of | interest which it involves are sectional, and the
•mailer dimensions. Nay, the fact of ihc exis- discussion of it h is unhappily become so. Nortii-
teuce of the claim of Texas to a portion of New ern Senators oppose it, because it surrenders what
Mexico, furnishes of itself a strong reason for iu \ they are pleased to denominate the rights ol the
organization. It is fit that the interests of the j non-sluvcholding Slates, while tho»e Southern
United States should be protected thus by their ‘ Senatota to whom it is unacceptable rest their op-
oiru officers, and that the 'Ivrrit»»ry should not be | position on the ground that a surrenders Uie rigiui
lnt in uieanamolous condition in which it now i«. | of the South. Surely, sir, this must be a bill of
I Again, it is said that the right of appeal which , very singulur properties, to be open to such fil
ial provided by this bill is illusory ; that the limits- rectly bppoaite objections. The claims of the.
ti^.i of it to cases where the value in controversy, North and South are exactly opposed, and yet it is I science. Tho laws of Mexico nrescrilie the only
exclusive of coet*, exceeds two thousand dollars, ' *aid to surrender both. Now, sir, this cannot be. ! form in which that worship in allowed. A citizen
wjll prevent it* exercise by a person suing for his | Uue class of disputants or Uie other, must be j of the United State* is entitled to his porsonal lib-
Sir, if Senator, will examine Uie case , in error. In my judgment they are both so. , erty ; his lantfoind tenements, goods and chattels,
ttrgi d in support of the right of the North to the
exclusive enjoyment of these territories. Now.
sir,l do not entertain this opinion. If I did, if I
thought that in strict law our right could not he
maintained, with the conviction which I have of
the undoubted equity of the claim of the Smith to
participate in all acquisitions made by the expen
diture of the common blood and treasure of all the
States, 1 would have remained silent and would have
h f: the argument to he sustained by those who were
to profit by its allowance. I have assorted the claim
of the South, and I am not willing to return to tny
constituents urul tel! them that 1 have asserted that
claim, but bad not sufficient confidence in its va
lidity to trust it to judicial decision. If we have
no right to carry onr slaves into these territories
without the permission of Congress, (and that is
the position in which this argument places us,)
wo may abandon at once the idea of having any
share in them, for the Missouri Compromise was
rejected bv the select committee, ana will be by
Uie House whenever it is offered.
But let us examine the argument which denies
this right. It runs thus :
Slavery exists only by forco of local statutes,
and is not protected beyond the limits within which
they operate. Tho laws of a conquered country
continue in fi r o until they are rep wledby the con
queror. Slavery lias been abolished in New Mex
ico and Calilornia, and cannot bo re-established
there without tho sanction of Congress—by the
repeal of tho existing law, and the enactment of a
law of slavery.
Now, sir, it is not true in point of fact that slave
ry exists or has existed only by force of local stat
utes. The fact 1ms been assumed in certain judi
cial decisions, und has been reiterated here, but it
is contradicted in others, and is utterly nt variance
with the historic record of the original States.—
Whoever will consult this, will find that slavery
existed in all the colonic* before any law was
E assed to authorize it. It was introduced into them
y the cupidity of the mothur country, (seeking to
avail herself of tho profits of the African slave
trade and of the market which the colonies afford
ed for the sale of slaves,) not only without any
local law to authorize it, but in tho face of the re
monstrances of the colonists, and of acts passed
by local Legislatures, which were negatived by tho
royal Governors. When, in process of time, it be
came nocessary to regulate this peculiar class of
people,aud to distinguish between those who were
free and those who were slaves, such laws were
passed, but slavery existed long anterior to their
enactment. The case of Georgia is striking in
this particular. That colony was settled in 1733
under tho government of trustees, which continu
ed for about twenty years, when they surrendered
their charter, and it became a royal province. In
1736, the trustees passed an act prohibiting the use
and importation of n A gro3» into the colony, yet
in despite of this, they wore introduced from South
Carolina; so that, when tho government of the
trustees ceased, it was deemed advisable to repeal
the prohibitory act. But tho first law recognising
the existence of slavery in that colony, was passed
in 1770, some twenty years after. Such, on ex-
aminuti m, will pe found to lutve been the fact, I
doubt not, in all the colonies. There is an express
recognition of it in a case decided In Louisiana,
in which the court say: It is an admitted fact tlmt
slavery has been permitted and tolerated in all the
colonies established in America by the mother
country. And again: Slavery existed iu tho col
onies long before nny legislative net of the mother
country authorizing their introduction, except the
charter of tho African company, and before any
colonial act had passed declaring its existence.
In a case decided in Virginia, the court say :
The slavery of the African has existed from the
time of bringing them into the colony—in niiny
Sines by express on.ictmmts declaring thorn
slaves, iu others by custom.
In Virginia it is certain that slavery existed long
before any local laws were passed to authorize it—
nay, notwithstanding the Provincial Legislature
attempts to impose n tax which would amount to
a prohibition of their importation; and no little
foundation is there for the assertion that slavery
exists only by force of local statute*, which basso
often been undo on this floor, that in the case from
Louisiana, to which I have first referred, the court
say : It may be laid down as a legal axiom, that in
all Government*, in which the municipal regula
tions are not absolutely opposed to slavery, persona
reduced to tlmt state may he held in it.
The foundation of the first proposition, the ns-
sutned fact on which it rests, is therefore, taken
from it. It ia not true, as wo have seen, that
slavery exists only by force of local statutes. It
existed in these colonies long anterior to nny local
statute In relation to it. Thoso statutes recog
nised and regulated, but did not establish it. Tho
r rinciple stated by the Court in Louisiana, to which
have referred, was that on which it rested. Tho
person* brought Uithe colonies by th ( * African com
pany, had brm reduced to slavery, according to
the laws and customs of their own country, either
as captives In war, or in whatever other mode,
and there Ining no municipal regulation in the col
onies oriooned to it, they were h A ld in that condi
tion. The remaining branch of this proposition,
that slavery cannot exist beyond tho limits of the
St ile in which it is established, I will consider
presently.
Tho next proposition stated by Senators is this:
The laws of a conquered country remain in force
unfit they are altered by the conqueror. It is not
necessary to deny this position, hut it is desirable
to understand it. A country subdued by force of
arm* i* held as a eouquetl until the right of the
conqueror is acknowledged by a treaty of pnaca,
or until so long a time has elapsed as to destroy
the right of post limine of the nation from whom
it has been wrested by force ol arms. If it has
. been yielded in the treaty of peace, tho terms of
that treaty settle th» condition of the inhabitants.
Now, that New Mexico and California are the
frnitH of conquest—that Mexico has been com
pelled to yield them by the terror of our arms, and
for the preservation of her nationality—is a propo
sition which I do not doubt. But she ha* yielded
them und* definite treaty of peace has *cUl*d the
condition rf their inhabitant*. They no longer
stand upon th" footing of a conquered people.—
They were left bv the terms of that treaty tree to
cfoyme between Mexico and the United States. If
they had adhered to tbe former, they would have
continued to oil oy the benefit of Mexican laws by
a removal to some other part of Mexico. If tlivy
chose the latter, they became at once entitled to
the privileges of riflz*n* of the United State5, and
in due time to be admitted as members of the
Union. Can Dose privileges h i enjoyed in sub
servience to Mexican laws? A citizen of the
United States has the privilege of worshipping
God according to the dictates of his own con-
mpmioned by the Senator from South Carolina, j To my Southern friends 1 desire to submit this ,
(Mr. Builer.) they will see that this difficulty is simple suggestion. The bill abstains from legis- 1
altogether imaginary. In that case Uie Supreme luting oil tlie voxed question of slavery. It leaves j
Court decided that when in a petition for Ireedom that to be decided by the people of the Territories, i
the appeal was taken by tlie petitioner, the requisi- when they are m sufficient numbers to be admitted j
tion as to value did not apply, because there the Slates, and are engaged iu forming their State
question of freedom w’as the ground of the appeal,' constitutions. In the mean time, if any question t
and that could not be appreciated by money; but ol freedom or slavery should arise the judiciary 1
wb sre the defends nt was the appellant, as his right will take cognizance of it, not by virtue of any !
of yro^ierty was the m itter in controversy, it must ! provision in litis bill, but in thu exercise of their j
be of tlie money value required IE the act; but,! pre-existingjurisdiction. All that il does in this j
air, having acquiesced in this bill, Ide*ire to see 1 regard is to -peed the derision of the case by the
its provision fairly carried out, and w.il therefore appellate irioaiul. In what sense this cau be
readily assent to the amendment suggested by the *>aid tu be a surreuuer of Southern rig/iis, 1 sin
Senator trom Maryland, (Mr. Johu-»on,) or any tulully at a loss to understand. In a Government
other which may be necessary to accomplish the hke our., that which is properly called a right it
object. ■ soiiicibing substantial—capable of being main-
But,again, it is olijeeted th it this is tin evasion uiued iu judicature, aud thereout—something
of our duty ; a transfer to the Supreme Court ol { a Inch a court ot justice would lie bound to recog-
a responsibility ..fiuch we ought ouraJvea to os* ' msc. To sty that we have no right which the
bumc. Mr. Presideut, this is a misapprehension ! highest judicial tribunal would recognise, is load-
Congress forbear* to exercise a doubtful power by mu that we have no right at all, but inch a* Con-
lig’klsting oti this subject. It leave* the conflict- j greas may be pleased to confer upon os—is to con
ing claim! which have given rise to an exciting' cede in iu whole extent the ergoAent which is
mirality in Florida, established by the Territorial
Legislature, under tlie authority of Congress $ and
the question* which it was necessary to decide
were the right of this Government to acquire ter
ritory, anJ the consequent power to govern it. In
the case of Strother and Lucus, tho point decided
was, that the inhabitants of Louisiana were enti
tled to tho protection of their property, as well un
der the treaty as by the law of nations, and, in
determining the question of title, to have the bene
fit of those laws under which it accrued. The
distinct question whether tho law* of a country
which is ucquired by treaty, Incorporated into tlie
United States as an integral portion of it, whose
inhabitants are declared to be entitled to the priv
ileges of citizens of the United States, and for
which a Territorial Government has been estab
lished by Congress—the question whether those
laws continue to exist and to operate prospective
ly, has not, I think, been decided. In relation to
the past, they are certainly effective to protect
rights acquired under them; but, in relation to the
tuture, the laws of the United States and these
made by the Territorial Legislature, under the au
thority delegated to them, are the only recognised
laws of the Territory, unless Congress shall other
wise provide. Accordingly, in the act establish
ing Territorial Governments in Louisiana aud
Florida, there is in each case an express provision
continuing tho pre-existing laws, under certain re
strictions. If without this provision they would
have been in forco, why was it made ?
But, Mr. President, is it quite certain that slave
ry is abolished in Mexico? Ido not speak now
ol peonnago, or white slavery, but of the African
race? The Senator from Rhode Island (.Mr.
Clarke) has exhibited the decrees of the Mexican
President and Congress of tho 15th September,
1829. and of 1837. Now, it is very clear that
slavery had not been abolished by tho first act, or
there would have remained no stores to bemalimit-
led by tho second. And yet it provides that M the
owners of slave* manumitted by this (tlie second)
net shall be inJetntiilied for the interest they hold
in them,” Is is certain, thon, tlmt there were
slaves iu Mexico in 1837, notwithstanding tho de
cree abolishing slavery in 1829. Tho truth I sup
pose to be tli,.*. these decrees were acts declaratory
of the will of tlie Government, to bo carried into
effect when its financial condition permitted. They
did not mean to deprive tho owner of hi* property
without indemnifying him. Accordingly, in tlie
second decree, they provide for an appraisement
and tho issue of scrip to tho owner, payable at
tho 'Treasury. This appraisement was to be made
by “duly considering the personal qualities of tho
slavos.” Now wore the appraisers to do this uti
les* the slaves were produced to them, and how
could they be produced if they become free co-in
slanti on the publication of tho decree, and before
tho uppraisinents were made, and of course at lib
erty to go whenever they might think proper. I
suppose, therefore, looking merely lo those decrees,
that tho abolition of slavery in Mexico enacted
by them remains to he completed by the appraise
ment of tho slave*, and the indemnification of
their owners, and tlmt until this is done they are
inoperative, or rather their operation i* incom
plete.
And now, sir, having offered to the Senate such
suggestion* a* occur to me on the questions wo
Imvo been examining, I turn to the consideration
of that which is in my judgement most important
—the right of every citizen ol the UnitoJ State*
to re.novo with hi* property, of whatsoever kind,
to any Territory ol tho United States. He who
denies this, is prepared to deny tho right of all, to
participate equally in tint which has been acquir
ed by the united elf irtsof all; lo assort, as a leg
islator, what as an individual lie would blush to
affirm, that the majority of a joint association have
a right to appropriate exclusively to themselves
the wiioio gains of the copartnership. The far
mer of tho North may emigrate to these Territo
ries with his family and household goods, with his
apprentices and hired laborers, his herds and his
flocks, Ills property of every description. Why is
it not a like privilege accorded to the Southern
plautor l I am told that negroes arc not property
lieyond the limits of tin States in which the own
er resides: that beyond those limits they are con
sidered as permits*over wlin.n tho owner can ex
ercise no dominion. Mr. President, | have before
pointed out the fallacy of this position, hut I de
sire again toeX|K>se it lo the view of the Senate.
Sir, no case has b en, no caso can be produced to
sustain it. Certain State courts have affirmed
that a slave brought with the consent of bis own
er* within the limits of \ State, whose laws for
bid slavery, thereby become* free. Tho correct
ness of these decisions may well be doubted, so
for as they apply to a citizen of tho United States
transiently passing through such States, not resi
dent therein; hut, waving this, it must bo obvious
to every Senator that they fall very short of tlio
position which they are adduced to maintain.—
They do not decide that the slave becomes free by
passing beyond tlie limits of tho State where his
master resides, hut by entering within the limits of
a State whose lawsfurh’ul slavery. To sustain the
position which is contended for here, it is neces
sary to produce a case which decides that a siavo
becomes free by passing into a Territory where
there is no law prohibiting slavery—into a territo
ry which is the common property of all tho peoplo
of the United Slates, whose inhabitants owe a
common allegiance to a Government whose con
stitution and laws do not prohibit, but expressly
recognise tho proprietary interest of the master in
his slave. Such a case has not b'jen and cann .t
bo produced. The precise converse was decided
in the Supreme Court of Loiiisiauu, in tho case to
which 1 have before referred. The loarnod judge
who pronounced tlut decision stated it a* a lege/
axiom, that in all Governments in which the mu
nicipal regulations are not absolutely opposed to
slavery, persons reduced to that State may be held
in it. It, then tho abolition of slavery has not
been completed in Mexico, or if, as I suppose,
Mexican laws will have ceased to exist, under tho
provisions of the treaty, from the establishment of
territorial governments in New Mexico and Cali
fornia, anti tlie extension of the laws of the United
Stales over them, this is, then, tho precise* caso
suggested by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in
which persons previously reduced to slavery, may
be held in it.
I have said that slaves are recognised as such in
(lie constitution and laws of the United States.—
They are recognised both as j>ersons and as prop
erly. As fter suns, they constitute an element of
representation, giving political rights lothoir own-
eras which they would not otherwise possess. As
projterly, they are liable to taxation, and have
been subjected to it whenever you have resorted lo
direct taxes. Your law* provide for the taxation
of slaves, and the collection of the tax by distress
and sale, by your officer, of the slave so taxed.—
Uuder the operation of these laws, slaves are now
held who have been purchased from your officer,
under warrants issued by your command. They
have been sold at your instance, and the proceeds
of the sales have been pul'd into the National Trea
sury. You are daily repeating this operation
by the sale of slaves under executions founded on
judgments recovered against defaulting officers.
Do you mean to deny the title which hu» been giv
en by your command, under the authority of your
laws, while you retain in your Treasury tho price
of the slave ?
Again: slaves arc recognised as proiterty by
your navigation laws. You provide for their trans
portation coastwise, from tho port of any State, to
“any port or place within the limits of the United
Slates.” You require certain thing* to bo done
by the owner, and thereupon your officer, under
the authority uf law, grants him a permit to trans
port bis slave expressly lo any port or place with
in the limits of the United Slates, to be sold as a
slave, or to be held to service or labor. Now con
sider the operations of these laws on tho questions
before us. A citizen ol Savannah bolding a slave,
the issue of one purchised by him from your offi-
lectorof that port, and, having complied with the
requisition* of the law, obtains from him a permit
to transport that slave to Monterey, a port or place
within the limits of the United States, there to be
sold as a slave, or to he held to service or labor
and having your title to this slave, and yon hav
ing his money, he has also your permit to carry
him there as a slave, tell me what authority is
there in any territory of this Union which can over
ride and nullify that of the Supreme Government
on which it depends, and from which it derives
whatever power it possesses ? Holding a title to
this slave, given by your officer under the authority
of your laws, while’ the price which he has paid
yet remains in tin National Treasury—having
your permit to carry him there to be sold as a
slave, or to be held to service or labor, what au
thority in that territory, over which you have ex
clusive dominion, can wrest from tne owner the
right which he has thus acquired to the labor and
service of this slave ?
SPEECH OF
MR. A. H. STEPHENS, OP GEORGIA,
ON THE COMPROMISE BILL:
Delivered in the 11mss of Representatives of the
United Slates. Aug. 7, 1848.
The House bavin? under consideration the two Mes
sages of the President in relation to Peace with Mexico
and the organization of Territorial Governments for
New Mexico and California—
Mr. STEPHENS obtained tlie floor, and said:
Mr. Speaker : The messages of tho President
now under consideration embrace subjects of gravo
and momentous interest, involving the peace, the
the happiness, the prosperity and honor, as well
as perhaps the safety, of the Republic. There
are many topic* alluded to in these message*
which require the calm and dispassionate consid
eration of this House, aud also the mature and de
liberate consideration of the people of this country.
»So faros this House is concerned*, I do not believe
that tho proper consideration can be given to them
at this session. The time is too short, even if the
prevailing temper hero was not unsuitod, as it is,
from tho excitement of a Presidential canvass, to
liter upon tlie investigation with that freedom
from passion and coolness of judgment so eKson-
tial for wise and prudent action. I intend there
fore, before hiking my seat, to move that the fur
ther consul'ration of these messages bo postponed
for the present, and that they be laid on the table,
to cotne up at the next session of Congress. Be
fore making that motion, however, I wish to sub
mit some views upon one of the subject* embraced
in them. I wish I had time to speak of all of them,
particularly the Presidents attempted justification
ior the exorcise of those extraordinary power*
which he claims as his legitimate right, as a con
queror under tho law* of nations, but one hour
will not allow this. Aud I intend, at this time, to
confine myself to one topic only, which is the or
ganization of territorial governments in New Mex
ico and California.
(Hero Mr. Inge, of Alabama, interrupted, and
said that, from the intimation of the gentleman,
lie *up|)ose<l lie wa* going to discuss the slave
question; and if so, he hoped ho would not close
his speech by moving to lay the subjoct on the tu
mble, but would allow the opportunity for a
are liable for Uie pavment of his debts, but his
person is exempt. For non-payment of a debt
the law* of Mexico subject him to slavery, which
can only be terminated by the certificate of the
creditor that the debt ha* been discharge. Are
Mexican* who have been elected to become citi
zens of th* Uniied State* *till anbiect to these
laws? Are citizens of Uie United States who
have emigrated or may emigrate to these territo-
ri'?* to be subjected to them ? Who will affirm
this ? Let it be remembered that, in no one of tlie
cases which have been referred to by Senator*,
was the question we are considering distinctly in
issue.
The opinions on which they rely are the obiter
dicta of the learned indges who uttered them. In
the esse dt ciled bv Lord Ms—field, the question
was, whether the Ring, by virtue of his royal pre
rogative—that is, independent of Parliament—
could impose the duty or tax which was the sub
ject of controversy. It was a question of British
coCfttituUonal law, and was Uio only ono decided . „ #
in the case. In the case of Canter, Uie inquiry cer, uuder a sale for direct taxes for which he has
related to the validity of a decree In a court of to-1
paid the price which you hold, goes before the col-
S. continued by saying: It is not my object,
Mr. Spoaker, to prevent a reply. My intention
was only to save time. If Inc gentleman from
Alabama, or any other gentleman wishes to
continue tlii* discussion, 1 individually, have no
objection, and, so far a* the argument 1 shall tuib-
mil is concerned, 1 shall certainly interpose no ob
stacle to any reply that any gentleman may desire
to make. I therefore now notify the gentleman
that 1 shall not make tlie motion just intimated.
Tlie President, Mr. S|>oakor,iii hi* his reply to
the resolutions of inquiry which passed this House
some day* ago, calling for information touching
the cliuractar and form of government iu these
late conquests, seem* lo have misconceived the
object and sco|)o of those resolutions; and, in his
m JSHago, refers only to those government* which
wore established by hi* own order, and which he
say* necessarily ceased at the termination oftlio
war. Now, sir, my object was not only to inquire
into that subject, but also to lie informed of the
nature and character of the government* which
would necessarily exist there upon tho displace
mentor dissolution, of those which were tempora
rily, illegally, nnd unconstitutionally, in my opin
ion, set up by himself. Before wc cau legislate
properly tor any people, and particularly the peo
ple of u conquered province, we must know some
thing of the nature, character, and form of their
government, and something of the laws in exis
tence and in force in the country at tho time of tho
conquest.
Tlie object and intention of my resolutions was
to get some information upon this point, as well as
others. But upon this the answer to tho call of
the House is silent, and the absence of this infor
mation constitute* of itself a very good reason for
opposition to any legislation by Congress over
these Territories, until it can be obtained. But,
sir, I have much graver reasons than this for my
opposition to tlie Territorial bill which was rejected
the other day, in this House, on my motion. It is
my object, at this time to speak upon that meas
ure which some gentlemen are pleased to call the
“ Compromise bill,” but whicli might bo more
properly entitled Article* of Capitulation on tho
part of tho South. So far from being a compro
mise, that bill proposed nothing short of an aban
donment ot the position of tho South, und a surren
der of the just rights of her people, to an equal
participation in the new acquisition* of territory.
Tin surrender was covert, but it was no less
complete and absolute.
This I int.md to show. Never was any meas<
lire more grossly misnamed or miscalled. It was
no compromise in any sense of tho word. A com
promise is a mutual yielding of rights, for the pur-
pj*o of adjusting and solding difference* and diffi
culties. But, in this case there was iio such mu
tual concession. The whole question was to be
li ft, iu the last resort, lo the Supreme Court of the
United States, upon whoso decision one party was
either to get all or lose all. And entertaining not
the slightest doubt that under it tho South was to
lose all, I adopted the speediest and most effectual
mean* of defeating il.
A gentleman from Virginia, the other day, (Mr.
Bayly,) intimated that the bill was laid upon tho
table for party effect and for party purposes; and
ho scorned to express great regret at tho defeat of
the measure. Sir, so far u^ the action of this
House was concernced, I can answer for nobody
hut yiysolf. i undertake to answer for no party,
no partisan and no oilier man. I know not by
what motives others were actuated ; perhaps Uie
motives were as different and ns numerous as Uie
members themselves. But so for as 1 was con
cerned, 1 can tell the gentleman from Virginia,
and tho country, that I wa* governed by my own
deliberate judgment upon the real character of the
measure; auu 1 trust I shall be able to show him
and the country that I understood what 1 was do
ing when I met that bill with firm rosistunco at the
very threshhold of your action. It wus in my o-
r inion just such a measure as no man in ibis
louse from any quarter ought to have voted for,
and particularly no man from the South.
And this sir, J affirm, in tho first place, because,
while il is urged as a compromise and a settle
ment of the agitating question which now so great
ly distract* the public iniud, il really settled noth
ing, but opened wide the door for greater aud more
a uming excitement. Thoso genUemen of Uie
North who advocated it, claimed it as a complete
triumph of Uieir principles; while those ot the
Mouth, I suppose, were prepared to go to Uieir con
stituents, and tell them lliat it fully secured all
their rights. Now, sir, 1 do not believe in coin-
primines or settlements tlmt are not fully and
clearly and distincUy understood oa both sides at
the time. •
Wbat is the point of difference now between the
wo greet sections of the Union ? The North in
sists upon the policy of excluding the inatituUous
of the South from the whole of the new Territories,
while the South contends that she is, in justice,
entitled to an equal share of whatever country may
bo acquired by the common blood and treasure of
of all. And how was this difference proposed to
be compromised and settled ? Simply by tne adop
tion of a measure, upon tho meaning and import
of which leading men on both sides, at the Ume,
differed as widely as they did upon tlie main ques
tion itself. So tar from settling the question, or
“ pouring oil upon the troubled waters,” such &
measure could out have multiplied difficulties, in
creased excitement, and “ added fuel to the flame.”
For this reason, in my judgment, the bill should
have met favor from no quarter. The real ques
tion, the great issue between the two sections of
the country, has to be met sooner or later, and no
shifting of responsibilty, in order to get a postpone
ment for the purpose of carrying a Presidential
election, or relieving a candidate from an almost
universally condemned position, will successfully
evade it. And when it is met, I want it met fair
ly and squarely.
But, in the second place, Mr. Speaker, it is my
object to show that, for far greater and more con
trolling reasons, no southern man should have
voted tor that measure. I do not often make sec
tional appeals upon this floor—never unles to re
pel attacks, or to maintain what I bolieve to be
right and just. In-this instance, I feel bound to
do so, no less in obedience to my own inclination,
than from a sense of duty to those whose honor and
interests have been confided to my charge. And
that duty I shall this day discharge, faithfully and
fearlessly, let the consequences be what they may.
That bill, I repeat, proposed a total abandonment
and surrender of the rights of the South. Not an
open abandonment, but a covert one. I do not
mean to say that those gentlemen who favored it
and who regret that it did not pass, so considered
it. But such would have been, nevertheless, its
effect. Audi will invite tho close attention of
those gentlemen who differ from me upon this sub
joct to the views I shall present, and tho positions
I shall assume. For 1 not only challonge, but I
defy a refutation of them.
To be understood more clearlv, I will read the
term* of tho bill itself, so fur as it relates to slave
ry in New Mexico and California. It will be seen
that all legislation by tho territorial governments
w respecting tho prohibition or establishment of
African slavery” was to be prohibited; and all
question* relating to titles to *laves there, or their
right to freedom, was to be left ultimately to the
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Here are the word* of the bill—
“ 8kc. 26 And he it further enacted. That the legials*
live power of Haul Territory nliall, until Congrem ihall
otherwise provide, be vented in the Governor, Secretary,
ami Judge* of tho Supremo Cotirt, who, or a majority of
them, hIuiII have power to pan* any law for the ad-
minintration of juHtice in *aid Territory, which shall not
he repugnant to this act, or incon*iatent with tho law*
and Constitution of the United State*, lint iio law
nliall Ira painted interfering with the primary diipusal ofo
the noil, respecting an eHUtbli*hinont of religion, or re-
sporting the prohibition or entahliithinent of African sla
very ; and no tax shall be impoaed upon the property of
the United State*; nor nliall the land* or other property
of non-refljdenlH bo taxed higher than tho lands or other
property of re*i(lenl*. All the laws nlml! he submitted
to the Conxres* of the United Buttes, and, if disapproved,
shall be null and void."
And in .the 31st section, after providing for the
organization of territorial courts, the following
provision is found:
*’ Writ* of error and appeal* from the final decisions
of said supreme court shall Ira allowed, and may he ta
ken to the Supreme Court of the United 8tates, iu the
same manner and under the same regulations a* from the
circuit court* of the United Stales; except onlvthatin
allcases involving title to slave* the raid writs of error or
apiieal* Khali Ira allowed and decided by the raid supreme
court, without regard to the value uf the matter, proper
ty, or tide in controversy; and except also, that a writ of
error or appeiil* nliall Ira ullnwed to the Supreme Court
of the United Stales from the decision of the supreme
court created by this act, or of any judge* thereof, or of
theduitrict court*created hv tin* act, or of any judge*
thereof, upon nny writ of habeas corpus involving the
question of iramonal freedom, &c.”
Tho bill contain* nothing clso whicli bears ma
terially upon tho subjoct of slavery. It merely
prohibits tlie territorial government from passing
nny law upon the subject; and loaves the southern
man, who tnay be inclined to go there with his
slaves, to contest his rights to the beat of hi* abili
ties with tho court* of the territory iu the first in-
atanco, and then, if he chooses, with the Supreme
Court of the Union.
All that the bill does is to guard against the pas
sage of any law for the protection of the master;
but opens wide tho door of expensivo and almost
endless litigation hetwoeu him and his slave, with
out affording him even the shadow of a semblance
of a hope that his rights, at the end of the law, will
over be recognised or enforced.
The most interesting of all questions, Mr.
Speaker, to the South, Upon this point, is, by what
law will the territorial courts in the first instance,
and the Supreme Court of tho Uuited States in tho
last resort, decide tho question of freedom between
tho master and siavo ? It is not the province of
courts, in their judicial character, to make laws;
they can only decide upon laws after thoy are made.
And, in the ahsonco of legislation by Congress,
and the territorial governments, upon this suojoct,
by what law, I ask, will tho courts decide questions
between tho master and his slave in these territo
ries? This, sir, is a great and vital ques
tion for us to consider—not as partisans, but as
statesmen, and as legislators— before we refer a
■subject of so much interest to their decision. It
is certainly a matter of tho utmost importance to
the people of the South that they should not be
left in ignorance upon it. And, so far as tny
ability goo*, they shall not be.
I set out, then, by stating tlmt, according to tho
host, ablest, and most approved writers, on pub
lic law nnd according to the decisions of the
courts in England in analogous case*, and accor
ding to the repeated decisions of our own Supreme
Court, to which this bill proposed to refer this mat
ter, (in the absence of such legis ition as I have al
luded to,) the law by which the courts would de
cide questions of slavery there, is the law which
was in force in New Mexico and California, upon
that subject, at tho time of tho conquest. The
general principles, which I understand to be recog
nised and well settled amongst civilised nations in
modem time*, in relation to conquest, are, that all
the laws which were in force in tho conquered
country at tho time of the conquest, are held to
continue in forco until altered or modified by the
conquering power, except such as mav be incon
sistent with the fundamental law of the conquer
ing power, or inconsistent with sotno stipulation
in the final trcaty»cr such a* were purely political
in their character, and concerned only tho relations
between the people and their former sovereign or
ruling power. This I state a* a proposition which
no man can controvert. In barbarous tirnos,
when a people were conquered, they might, by
the law* of war, be put to tlie swore, or be re
duced to the condition of slaves. With the pro
gress of civilization however this principle has been
modified. According to the modern aocirine, the
relations of tho people towards their sovereign or
ruling powor, in whatever form of government,
are changed; but their relations towards each oth
er and their laws, ns before stated, remain until
modified or altered by tlie new governing power.
Upon this subject Grotius, in his wont, (Book
III, chap. 16, section 9,) citing tho case of tho
Jews, which might, perhaps, be referred to from
much highor authority, says:
* Thu* the government continued among the Jews in
the Sanhedrim, even after Archelaus had been strip! of
his kingdom. And Rvsgora*. King of Cyprus, (as Dio
dorus relates,) raid he would obey the King of Persia,
but that as one king did another.”
Upon the text above, so far as it relates to the
Jews, the author has a note in the following words:
“ That is to ray they judmd according to their own
laws, as did most of the people dependant upon the Ro
man Empire. For the reel, before Archelaus was banish
ed to Vienna, the oomplete sovereignty wis no longer ia
the Jewish nation."
Id another place, Book 1, ebap. 3, Mai 89, aoU
S, the mi author nyu:
r.—.in»,u»*eqai«ll
tttiom tnd madifiauicm. n
Again, hr uya,on page 4M:
“But at promt war ii Km ttnftlaio't
thing, an tiaraactad with ana hnamUfl
om aovenign that m>th«raahM wat
the quiet iuttf«w. The eooqnemr 1
Uie pnaewim of the itate, dnWUt h
lie, while prime penrna ua ]
Thermlfer hot indirectly by i
■nit u, that they oniy change w
And, again, the mine author mya, on page 4M:
“ We in alwayi to riwiwher, that the law ,'
P smite no injury to bo dam lo en e
Ing meaenie. neriwery fnrajnw
mnehie necuritiy. Some ptincee hate
tribute on It, other, haw mew mbAed - ■ —
of ume privilege,, dletnembering ajnrrtM^erhmjjni
it in ewe by fortreuee; other,, M thei»_qaaim we, only
with theuveieign in peieon, wa le#a then the
full enjoyment of ell lie righw. only ootdJng aeowreigm
over it. But If the emnaewr thlnhe proper to iet*a.fta
uverignty of the vanqnialwd Male, md hae Mil
right, the manner in which be ie to mat' *
flow, from the aaeae principle. If the
the ju.t object of hi, complaint, ruaemi
hie conqneM. he aoqnine only mob right. *e t
belonged lo the dethroned uveeoign t.ann
■ion of hi. people, he ie to govern it eocofdlng
law. of the Male.”
These authoritiea inetain the poaitiOB I aaa
They could be multipled to • much greater t
ButI eaid the mme prindplen had been eeMM br
solemn adjudication in the Engiiah eotuta, a*l 1
now ask the attention of the Houee to ana, earn,
decided by Lord Mansfield in ITU. U la the earn
of Campbell t>*. Hall, reported ia 1M Cowper 105.
The principles involved in it are vmjr amlofpo*,
indeed, to many that may ariee oot of onr lata tmr,
and the conduct of onr Executive in aernnjttgihe
power to lay and collect dutiea in the MlJaan
ports, out of onr own citizen*, without authority of
law. .. i ,
Campbell, the plaintiff, waaa natural born auk-
ject of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and on the
3d of March, 1763, purohaeeda planMSon ia tha
Island of Granada, which had been taken from the
French by the British arms in open WM tome tune
before. The King, by virtue of hie rofri prerog
ative, imposed a duty of fomr end a half parent
upon all sugars exported from the Islend of Chan*
ada. Campbell paid the doty, and then brought
an action agaiust the collector for me money.-—
Tho whole doctrine and principle of compTOu
recognised by the courts of Great Britain teem to
Imvo been discussed. The reporter says the care
was very elaborately argued four rorerul timee,
and Lord Mansfield finally delivered the unani
mous opinion of the court.
And in that opinion I call the attention of tho
House to the following principles, Rated on the
208lh and 209th pages of the 1st volume Of Cow
per’* Reports:
“ A great deal has been said, and many a
ted, relative to propositions, in which both a
Ira perfectly agreed: and which, indeed, i
i sssmto
ftjeelaar
to Ira controverted. This stating some of those propodb
lions which wo think quite clear, will lead us to see with
greater perspicuity, what is the question upon the awl
point, and upon what hinge it turns. I|willatais tbs
preirasilions at large, and the first is tide: .
A country conquered by the BnUsk sna* ninosssaa
dominion of the king in the right of his crown jttd,
therefore necessarily subject to t£e legislature, the pallia*
men t of Great Britain.
1’he 3d is, That the conquered inhabitants ones re
ceived under the king’s protection, become subjects, aod
are to be universally considered in that light, not as ene
mies or aliens. , _ , , . w . .
The 3d, That the articles of capitulation upon *Meh
the country is surrendered, and the articlee of peace by
which it is ceded, ere sacred and inviolable according to
their true intent and meaning. M
The 4th, That the law and legtfativs government of
every dominion, equally affects persons aodaii prop
erty within tlie limits thereof: and isthe role of dedsloa
for all questions which arise there. Whoever purchares,
lives, or sues there, puts himself under the law or tho
place. An Englishman In Ireland, Minorca^ the me of
Man, or the Plantations, has no privilegs distinct Atom
the natives. „ .
The 5th, That the laws of a conquered country con
tinue in force, until they aw titered by the conaUerar t
the absurd exception a* to Pagans, mentioned in GoI-
tin's case, shews the university and antiquity of tbs
maxim. For that distinction could not exist before toe
Christian era; and in all probability ait
enthusiasm of the Cromukf. In
tlie cppitulation
they shall continue
until his majesty'
The 6th, and'
when I say tlie I
concurrence of pari
i
urn of the Cromutu. In the poemt a
illation eiprewly prorlde. end epee., that 3
itinue to be governed by their own laws, ,
ity'. further plessum be known. »
1 leal propomtion ie, that If th* kin, (and m
king, l alwayi mean tlie kin, without tha 4
parnainent.) ha. a power to alter the c“
ie, that if lb* king (and
"r without tha
alter the old
vuiaa.uiiu.iw u* |eei,uwwv...„ —— — g , ., ,
and to introduce new laws in a conquered country, this
legislation being subordinate, that is, subordinate to his
own authority in parliament, he cannot mayo MV **
change contrary to fundamental principle*; he oanuot
exempt an iuhanitant from that particular dominion l ae t
for instance, from tho laws of trade, or from the power ov
parliament, or give him privilege* exclusive of bis other
subjects; and so in many other instances which aught
be put.”
The fourth and fifth of those proposition* MO-
tain tho principles upon which I rely. The fifth
contains in express terms what I have Mated, that
“ the. Laws nf a commend country continue in Jot lit
until they arc altered by the conqueror, 1 *
Some stress in this case seam* to have bawl
laid on tho terms of capitulation at tha time ofth,
conquest. Amongst other things it ia aajd, it wa*
expressly stipulated “that Granada should oonttn-
110 to bo governed by its present laws untut Hit
Majesty’* further pleasure.' 1 So fitr a* that ia
concerned, the case is identical with the oooquM
of Now Mexico aud California. General Kearny
n his nrnelamation at Santa Pe, on tha Sfid Au
gust, 1846, uses this language:
“ It b the wUh end intention of the Unhid Statu to
provide for New Mexico a fiee government, with tha
least paetlbls delay, umilsr to thus in the Uailj«l Jb*MM
end the people of New Mexico will then be sailed CM la
exercise the rights of freemen, in electing their own MM-
resenietivee to the territorial legielatui*. But mtU mt
can be done, the law hitherto ia anetenca will Is pen-
tinned unlit ckt:nard or neddlxiftr competent oslaorfln^
good olTiuiu, and are willing 10 taka tha sathofgxT
glance to the United Statee.”
And in hie proclamation at Monterey, in CnM-
fornin, on the first day of Much, 1847, ha Mn
similar language, aa follow*:
“ It b the deaire and intention of the United Seals. k>
prooure for California u wmdily ae poatHsn bee,
ment like that of their own lerriloriee,and they w_
•oon invite the inhabitanb 10 eaerebelhs rights if
citisew in the choice of their own repremn
may enact such laws so they deem bee, ad
internet and well being. Bel until Ml lalw,
wdeoUy ia wielence, witch ere act ruMaaMetheGMw
aiUulion qflhe United Statu, will ewwsna force engl
the, are molted by comfetet ‘
the exorcboofpnolio empli
remain in them, provided
said Constitution, and fohUklly dbehaigs
Those proclamation* were tha terms af tha an-
pitulation. BythapnmiaaaandaaawaaeaatMaa.
In given, tho people wete induced to
oflbr no further resistance '
according to the opinion of
read, the term* of the capitnktisa In
by the laws of nations, would In h _
and inviolable according to t^aiy ttue tnlant
meaning.” Hot, air, tiia Mm* rale'wonU -
even if there had bean 00 aoch lenaa of
tion. Theeapitulolian only inemeaeo tho ohHgn.
tion to adhere to the general role tbit the lutaof
a conquered people, with tha eiaagticn hatwa
stated, continue in force until altered bylbeMW
governing or oooqueriaf powor.
It remains for me now to show
principle baa been repeatedly _
tied by onr own Supreow Court
I refer, tiret, to the opinion gir
Marshall in the case of the '
Company etal. ve. Carter,
this case (hat learned jodfe need
guage:
“ The CouettiutioD oonka i
ment of the Unto the seSgc
lag peace; ooouqeeaUy that
power of acquiring territory
treaty. The usage of the
lirely subdued,
lory es a men
determined at the
treaty, the eoqob
lory became apart
either oa th, terms
onnehubenss
hr ofMnitary.b
of the lnhatdiaab
Their relations wit
and new riblinu ara en
(dorermMU whiekha* *i
sum set which MMa
aoa etsuranoea mens-
*
nw Sines ra ft
data in each enau
nwSI.
Mint and
da—gratia
I trixna were wore—.
I 1 at act co. oeyx.», ms. *■»
t\ Julvll ' i. F winVeb dx ro
tat. eg ^
»nvn e. wtl I.r'ftv
Ciisti.hoochw i imremuial all impartisl mind, must have been coo- I the foaming torront, th*
amt I vincod that a inau nf Usability never wpnl|U|M)J «d. - -
*
