Newspaper Page Text
PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY MORNING,
• V
THOMAS RAGLAND & CO.,
PROPRIETORS.
LISTED IN THE EDIT .'RIAL DEPARTMENT
BY
S. W. FLO U fit X O Y•
ET.11S—Two Dollars and Fifty Cents per nn*
nn n, oayahle mvarinhly in advance, or three dol
lars if no; paid in advance.
> I* mar will h • li«continued while any arrearage is
due, unless at the option of the publishers ; and four
I) dlar< will, in ill cix '** -xaefe 1 whe *•; payment is
not made before the exnirati >n w the subscription year
ADVERTISEMENTS
»a«pinuoudy inserted at one dollar per one hundred
w.»rl «, for the first insertion, and fifty cents for
every subsequent continuance. A "quare in the En*
q'lir.T is the space of eleven lines in small type,eon-
uiuimi, as it does, one hundred words.
> ll VnvEUTisEMEN’TS sent to iis without specifying
the nu nb»r of insertions desired, will he continued
o r . ord -re 1 out. an 1 charged accordingly.
Of Forty Years standing.
F EELING it t<> hr minty to make known the follow-
inc case, I cheerfully com pi vs
F >r forty years or more, my wife has been troubled
with a chronic tetter upon the hand*, which at times
nnnoved u-r imm-nsely. To cure it during tlmt Inijff
peri-Ml. Almost every thing that could b-J im*ini*»iie<l bad
b— n :ri-«l m vain. At length, hearing of Dr. Little's
Ringworm and Tetter Ointment, and some important
cures it had efTeete I in tny county, we determined to
try it. About the first of last year we beg in Using it,
and two bottles were applied, it was entirely cured,
and has remained soever since.
WILLIAM D. TUCKER.
Crawford county, Jan., 1850.
Try it for Once*
Coughs, colds, asthma, pain in tho chest, many other
cases thought to bo consumption, croup, inflammatory
Fever amongst children, for either of these affections try
the Anodj
I—
that it is one of the most elegant as well as effectual rei
edies ever offered to the public. A single dose *r tw
for instance will allay the most violent cough, which
a few hours, or at most in a day nr two will be eu
There is not the slightest danger in the use of the
cine, for even in double dose-, it only nauseates ^an ef
fect n I ways beneficial, particularly with children, and
also for all persons troubled with Asthmatic breathing.
Resides curing the cases enumerated, this medicine is a
most valuable remedy for Cholic and all *|iasi»[>dic af
fect i.ns.
'Poe Rev. Mr. Turner, states as follow*, to say nothing
of the many cases tlint might be referred to, where the
medicine lias been used :
“ Having labored under a virlcnt rough and pain in
chest for several months, I called on Dr. Little for a
prescription, who gave me his Anodyne Cough Drops.
I found immediate relief after beginning to take them,
ami by continuing a few days my cough and pain was
entirely Mi-ved with quite an improvement of my gen
eral Ivalih. The medicine is quite pleasant to t ike,
in t I -o coder il tl" 1 won valuable I e\ -r met with.”
Talbot county. JOHN W. TURNER.
£!)c Columbus inquirer.
VOLUME XXIII.
A STRICT ’CONSTRUCTION OF TIIE CONSTITUTION AN IIONEST AND ECONOMICAL ADMINISTRATION OF TIIE GOVERNMENT.
COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, TUESDAY MORNING, MARCH 5, 1850.
NUMBER 10.
aarfcttltuval Department.
NDEIl TIIE KDITOKIAI
Cil VItLIIS A.
si:pervision ok
*EAUOI>\\
nf till) World.'
Dr. Little—Dear S
on of a case m which y
tal. lie has take
I it a duty to inform
ync Cough Drops, was
l-ss. For I he last twenty years a
had a severe cough and Asthma,
very three or four weeks, and
h violence ns nearly to prove fa*
neb in-dirine iH-idcs being at-
witli but liiili* Is-nefit. During
I prescribed y..ur drop*,
e cough and dilliciilt»
left. Sev
i he had
W W. L. W \LKER.
y. On., April. 18is.
tuo.lv it.- ('ougli Drops
• ll •
found
ig cough it proved f
k I, haim in am wa<
JOSKFII LANE.
the Balsam of Wild t hem
lor coughs or cold*. In W
efP-ctual it* to prevent its do
(signed)
Sold by Hie Proprietor at each o| In* Drug Stores,
Milledg.ville and Mam.; Dr. ROBERT CARTER.
M."*r*. JAS F. WINTER X CO and Dr. LOVICK
PIEID 'E, (’olumhiis ; Dr. <*. L Allen and Dr. Black,
Enfaula ; Cosier A* Coxc, Moiitgomerv. Ala.; Dr. C.
er, Wetinitnkn; Dili A Alexander, Fori Caines;
also h< Hamilton, C.reenville, Ncwnon, West P.
Talbot'on. Mn-u-i Vista. Lumpkin, A'!,any, Auvrieiis,
l’.*rrv, we —H. Whitehurst. f.'JR.tKD, Ala.; Dr F.
Fowler. Tu-kegce; .1. J. Mason, Auburn; Ward A:
Armstrong. NotHsnlga; J. J Scegar. Crawford.
Also, In l) D VNFORTH A CO., Columbus.
Ffb 26 9 ‘it
SPRING.
“ Come gentle Spring, elite rial mildness come/"
Spring, the joyous Spring, is again upon us, and
who does uot feel its life-giving influence on body and
on mind! Old age feels the blood of younger years
rush through the heart strings, us the first spring bird's
note is heard, and the frost-bound flora ope’s her blush
ing lips, smiling through dewy tears. The bud, tho
blossom, and tho fruit, are working now their s.lent,
beautiful, and mysterious way, and nature boon will
wear her floral livery of spring. But why have flow
ers u beauty, and why a sweet perfume ? Could not
the all powerful hand of (iodus well have brought the
seed, or fruit, from out the hardy wood, or succulent
cm, as to have sent its beautiful forerunner the blos
som ? Then why refuse to enjoy the sweet gifts of
Ueaveu, the bounteous beauties of nature. The
blessed Redeemer lias said, “ Behold the lilly of tho
valley, they toil not, neither do they spin, and yet Solo
mon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
Were King Solomon in ail the pomp and glory of his
regal Slate, to visit us now, what crowds would flock
to behold him. The statesman would leave the forum,
the lawyer his briefs, the merchant bis counter, the
mechanic bis shop, the house wife and daughters the
domestic hearth, to gaze upon so great a monarch ;
and thousands would pass unheeded by, the vety
flower the Saviour spoke of as being more glorious in
its array, more mysteriously beautiful, more complex,
and yet more simple than earth’s greatest, wisest king.
Think not lightly, then, of tho sweet spring flowers,
in wisdom were they made; study them, and adore
the Maker. And there are other themes than flowers
that cooio with spiiug. The plow now furrows up
the earth, seeds now quicken into life, and food and
r iiuii-iu f»r another year depends upon the industry
and skill of the husbaiidniun, blessed by the homily of
Heaven. I'lic seed time promised, hits come! The
harvest is in the future. Plant us having to feed and
clothe a hu. gry and a naked world. A high bequest
the far ner's; the prosperity of the country is in his
hands and keeping, he not then over hasty in pluiiliug,
*• A.* yet the trembling year is unconfirmed
And winter oft ui « ve resumes the breeze,"
be wary then of seed, but drive the plow, apply fertil
izers, and when spring shall truly come, “ the sower
may go forth and now,*’ uud the genial eurth s .all soon
quicken the seeds into vigorous life and fruitful bear-
iug.
ISAAC T. ROBINSON,
AGENCY OF
Dr. S. S. Fitch’s celebrated Medicines,
used by him u itli such (li-lineu,.l.e,| n.icccm in the cure
of COl'CllS, < ONSUVIPTION. Catarrh, Asthma,
H-art Discuses, DVSPEPSIA, Uonorrlirea, Piles, Fe
male Complaints, Ac. Ac.
-A Iso-
Dr. S. S. FITClP-S Abdominal Supporters. Shoulder
Bruces, Inhaling Tubes, and Lectures on Con
sumption. and theui l of preserving Life
and Hialth to old age, flr. ifrr.
Itr 1. T. Robinson has been appointed Agent for the
mb* of the above Hood*, an I will keep them constantly
on hand at his store, when* mv also he found a large
assortment of nil kinds of BOOKS, cheaper than at uny
r place in this city.
Oc
in fin
Catalogue Fresh Garden Seeds,
ATT ARK \ NTEI) the Crop of lrtT.I. for sale at the
\V B.o : Dun Store, by CUAS A PEAtUWY,
id by K. (’. Shorter, ut the old »
id of Pt
»iy &
mini*. Giant. jE;g Plant, large purple,
s, Eirlv Gliin t Snap*, Mu-uird, large while.
’ Mohawk ” Melon, Early Long bland,
White Kidney “ " Green Nutmeg.
Large white Pole, ONION.
Dutch Ca*e knife, While Portugal or silver
Rob Roy, | skin,
Iilarge purple Yellow Strashurg,
Capt .
“ Bone Plant,
Beets, l.ong Blond,
“ Early Turnip blood,
“ .M.igelwoi/.el,
•* 8t. John Sinclair.
CABBAGE.
Early York,
“ drmnhea l or haltersca
“ Oxheart,
“ Sugar Loaf,
“ White Dutch,
Large Lai*- Dniinhead,
•* B-rgin or great Am.,
Green Glazed,
Green Globe Savoy,
Large York.
CARROT.
Long Orange,
•• White Altrincham,
“ Cauliflower, late, •
** Celery, Giant Solid.
CUCUMBER.
Long Green,
E.rly Hunch Cluster,
“ Curled Cress,
Garlic Sets.
Corn, Early Roasting Ear,
“ Long white Dutton,
•* Galden Baden.
Kale, Siberian Scoteh. English White Norfolk,
Leek, Large Scotch. I/mg Hanover,
Lettuce, Ice Head, Rutabaga,
“ White Hevl, ! Red Top,
“ Green (lead, [Strap Leaved.
“ Brown Dutch. Doiifde Sage.
Lucern Clover, Blue Grass. |Sweet Tliyine.
Also a fine assortment of Double llvacintlii, Tulips,
Peoniaa, Gladiolus, Dahlias, Choice Fruit Trees, Rare
Strawberry P f ants, Grape Vines, &o.
[gf A liberal discount made to country Dealers.
Columbus, Jan. 1, 1H51). _ I tf
igrCut this out, an I keep i: for reference.
Fresh Jar dsn Seed*, for 1850.
Early I ng s»l K ,j. IK-at. tsSiriy curiM £ . Lettuce
" Cnma ** do ! trown Dutch do
Red D
BUTTON ONIONS.
R**d A Yellow Onion Sets.
< >kra, long white.
Parsnip, large Dutch.
PEAS.
Ext a Karlv Cedo Noli,
Early Washington,
Prince Albert,
Large Marrowfat,
Dwarf, Marrow tat,
Sugar Pea.
Parsley, Curled.
Pumpkin, Mammoth.
Pepi'KR, Lmg Cayenne,
** Squasli or Bell.
RADISH.
Long Scarlet,
“ White Naples,
Early White Turnip,
lying Salmon,
“ Spinneh. round,salsify.
SQUASH.
Early Bunch,
Vegetable Marrow,
Summer Cruukiieck,
Winter Cnokneek.
Tomato, large smooth red.
TURNIPS.
Early White Dutch,
: K ..f- P
do
Pole B an,
Indian Chief Pole Bean,
Large Li mi do It
Eirly Bb*od turnip H*.*t,
Long Bbioi Red do
Bni "el* Sprout*,
Kirlv York Cabbage,
French Oxheart do
Lire* York do
Eirly Sugar Loafdo
1 iVinte Mustard,
; frown do
; S’.isturlium,
lumen yellow oi
j vVliile Portugal
j While okra,
; Plain Parsley,
Druu
iea.1 do
do
i Early Pi
! Extra e»
j Early wa
rly May
do
Pre n urn Fiat Dutch Cubg.! “ ’ Double 1 In
Lirge lf^rgen do ** Frame or June do
D u nVa l Savoy do Dwarf Biuu Prussian do
RjI Ditch do iFitiks Dwarf Victorp do
Eiriy L Ml .1 Caulifl nver, 1 s.arge white Marr wvlat do
II ira C
igO-tge
it,
Eirly ill
do
London long green do
Purple Egg Plant,
Early while Corn,
And Yellow Onion Sets.
Columbus, Dec. 11
i it 11 ml Spinagt
; "a i fy or vegetable oyster,
• Eirly yell i,v hush Squash,
•• cr«s)k neck do do
Large red Tomato,
I Early red lop Flai Turnip,
| '■ Plat Dutch do
ICuiled Scotch Kale,
led by
Garden Sced3.
-'.Iwnibu-, Jununry S, IH5V
JOHN 'V. l-LAoi
[For the. Agricultural Drjuirtmrul of the Euifnircr.]
Me. Cdtlor—Ut-'iir .Sir:—Siucu I liuvu Leeu at
.M;Vlilt', 1 have met will) geatluineu Irani all
|airia tf our Slut'*, and caaveniiiig on Agriculiurul
ini|)ruveuienta in dilleront conntiua. 1 liml wliaru there
have been farmed Agricultural Aaaociatious, they have
made the greatest advancement* in the knowledge of
cultivating ead improving tho noil. This induce* me
lo look aiuuud u! home, und when I see with delight
and jilensurc, many associations that have been formed
for Ilia advancement of society, uud the roll nn of the
iiuemjierate ; yet the very source and fountain from
wlieuca ull our temporal blessings are derived, are
neglect! d uud overlooked.
Alilscog! , e, and Kassel county, Alu., are divided hy
llie Chatlaliaooliee river. Some of our wealthy and j
talented planters have plantations in Ilia county of .
Kussel, and reside in Muscogee, as such our interests
are closely identified, and we now propose to form an I
Agricultural Association, to lie known hy “ Muscogee '
und Russell," or any other name tho Association may
think pioper to adopt, when formed.
The evidences of improvement ill agriculture
rapidly dawning, and why should this vicinity, with
all the means of improvement ns much under her con
trol as any other section of the Slate, longer stand
with her arms folded ! Agiicullure uppears to boon
the verge of u new revolution, promising soon to rcuuli
u climax of perfootiou not hitherto attained hy it in
the South. Farmers aru mitering vigorously and
earnestly into the muntiriiig system, they begin to un
derstand something of tho naltlic and character of
soils uud luniiurcs—tho source from wlieucu wealth
uud temporal blessings flow. A few years since their
ideas in relution to these matters wera quite vague,
more imagination than otherwise, Btiflcriug themselves
to be led by tliu fickle hand of fancy; you, the very
idea of forming a now soil us a sulwlitute fur tho old
und nuturul one, worn out, und ill mauy instances
abandoned, by irregular tillage, rose in inouolaill size
before their startled imagination. They have acted us
if they thought it was next to impossibility to resusci-
tutu a worn out soil without more luhor and expense
than tile realized profits would justify, hence they con
tinue their wanton depredations on u virgin soil, cutting
down and wearing out, and throwing away, until tho
surface of our country now presents a miserable picture
of barren old fluids, rotten fencus, and red gullies—
emblematical of a people following a profession, yet
destitute of a correct knowledge of the true principles
of it. Now for our mutual improvement let us come
together, ami each ouo contribute his mite, hy imparl
iog his practical knowledge.
I propose that the citizens of .Muscogee and Kus
sel meet ut the Court-House in tho city of Columbus,
on the first .Manduy in May next, lo form an Agricul
tural Association, by adopting a coustituliou, uud
electing officers, Ate. V. I,
lit inorh.i hi/ the Editor.
The above suggestions, coming as they do from an
exteusive practical planter, arc worthy theseriouscon-
s'deruimo of every cultivator of the soil. Bunding to
gether for mutual improvement uud protection, is now
the great Agricultural lev-i of Eugt.ind. The same is
working mighty changes North, uud in.nod hero in
a spirit of Union and energy, will revolutionize thu
present system of me South. .Merchants have their
Cxuuuilges, and Mechanics their .Societies, lor the
extension of knowledge and the protection of interests ;
and shall thu Agriculturist plod on in the paths of his
fathers, regardless of the improvements urouud him T
Tiie beaming light of Agricultural Scieuco forbids il.
If the farmers of this und the adjoining counties will
unite in forming uu Agricultural Society, they call
form an Association which for wealth and talent can
not be surpassed in tile Union, uud such u Society,
firmly established, with efficient officers, united by a
comuiuu desire to benefit nut only themselves but
their fellow men, will do more to elevate the Agricul
ture of the South thun any cfiurl that has yet been
made. Come oue, come ull, then, ou the first .Von-
d’ty in May. .Muke tho begiuniug—chouse your of
ficers, adopt a Constitution, raise a fuud lo bo distrib
uted ill puzes, and transact ull other prelirniuury bu
siness. Every man tliui fills the earth, whether it is
hut a garden patch or a culloli field, has a deep inter
est in the lormufien of this Society. Hitherto our in
formation has come principally from abroad—let us
now by u union of our beads aud heart., create prac
tical information at home.
Columbus is a central point for meeting ; let then
every cultivator who wuuld raise the standard of his
profession, iuc ease his own knowledge, or that of his
iii . Brouiptfi. respond to the Planter’s •
1 ar. I d'e for'natiou :.T lua noeicl). i—*
member the first Mouduy in May.
SPEECH of Mr. BEBSIEN of QEOROIA,
On Hr. Clay's proposed Compromise.
[cONCl.UDKD.]
In Skxatk, Tuesday, Feu. 13, 1851).
The same subject being again under considera
tion—
•Mr. IlKititn-.N.—I resume this discussion at the
point at which 1 left it yesterday, submitting to
tiie Senate only one of two remarks necessary to
preserve the connexion of the argument. I was
engaged in llie effort to demonstrate that Congress
had no power to prohibit slavery in the Territo
ries. I had presented ns a consideration cal
culated to deny to them that power, the constitu
tional right of tho people of the United Slates. I
had founded that right upon the equality which
was the elementary principle of the constitution,
and deduced it from the sovereignty of the respect
ive States. My purpose now is, in further support
of the negative of this power to tiie Congress ot the
United States, to advert to the principles of inter
national law applicable to a question like this, und
then briefly to trace the power up to its source, ac
cording to the several means hy which it has been
derived, fur the purpose of showing, as well upon
the principles of international law applicable lo a
community of interest, as by reference to the sour
ces of that power, that this limitation is a necessa
ry result. It is said by Vattel:
“ When a nation, in a body takes possession of a
country, every tiling that is not divided among its
members remains common to the u'lwlc nation, and
is called jnihiic jirojterty."-Valtcl page 109 s. 236.
So u community may acquire property by coir
veyance:
•• All tho members of a corporation (I add, till
the citizens of a State) li n e tin equal right lo tin*
use of its common prnneln/; but respecting tho
manner of enjoying it, tho body of the corporation
(as the State) may make such regulations as they
think proper, provided that those regulations be
not inconsistent willi that nguility which ought to
be preserved in it communion of properly. Thus,
u corpiraiion may determine the use of a common
forest or pasture, either allowing it to all the mem
bers according to their wants or allotting each one
nn equal share : hut they litvo not a right to r.c-
chide any one of the number, or to make a distinc
tion to his disadeintage, by assigning hi,it a less
share titan that of the others.”
Thu slaveholders of the South are members of
tho community having equal rights with others.
You cannot exclude them from the use of the pub
lic property wliiedi is common to all. You can-
lint make a distinction totln ir dtsadcuntngu by the
prohibition of the slave labor.
It is milnriunate for the argument of the North,
that the slaveholders of the South, notwithstand
ing the sioti of slavery which attaches to them,
ar ■ by your consent a portion of the community of
the United States. They, with you, are entitled
to equal rights. They, with you, livo under litis
const it utioii, with the l ull right of using all llie
means which they deem necessary for the enjoy
ment of that portion of llie Union which they pos
sess. I'mi propose to do wlnt ? Not lo exclude
them frinn this Territory, gentlemen tel! us, it is
open to the Sunt It ns wall as to llie North ; trill yon
propose, io the very words ol'lhisauthor,"lo make
a ili-timiion to their disadvantage, in tho manner
in which this public uud common property shall
lor used. While you “keep the word of promise to
the ear, you break it to llie hope.” You (ell us,—
go into these Territories llry are us free to you
us its. But, in order fit secure to yourselves the
exclusive enjoyment, of that tpiu make a tlisliwlion
to our disadvantage, the inevitable result of which
you know will lie lo exclude us from nil patlicip t-
tioti in that enjoyment. I h -g Senators to consul
whether this lie a proper exercise ol power in re
lation to other matters than slavery. Will you re
vert your recollections to tin: period of nur colonial
vassalage when (treat Britain sought lo limit our
ell'irts to the cultivation of the soil, hy which site do-
h good to make the products of our labor exclusive-
11 j ly agricultural, to bn transported in the form of
v raw materials only loiter. Do you believe that you
y, possess such a power as that in the territory of
the Uultod States ? If you choose to make Cal-
,, I ilnrnia altogether an agricultural country, do you
| you believe that you could inhibit the muniifaclur-
i er ol M issachusniis from taking out uud erecting
j and working his machinery there ! Do you be
lieve that yen could inhibit tiie inhabitant of Maine
or New Hampshire from constructing his shliips
uud navigating them to whatever ports he might
think proper? Could you lorhid one branch nf in
dustry or another? Y uu have just as much and no
more right to make a distinction lo the disadvantage
of Massachusetts, Nciv Hampshire or Maine, by
inhibiting that peculiar industry to which they are
accustomed todirecl their productive labor, us you
have to make a distinction injurious lo the people
of tiie South, by requiring that labor within the
Territory of California shall he exclusively free la
bor. Mo this proposition stands upon thu 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 the first
place, to that clause of the constitution which au
thorizes Congress to make all needful rules and
regulations—not for the government, as gentlemen
are in tiie habit of quoting the clause, hut needful
rntes and regulations respecting tlic territory oroTH
ICK l’KoPEKTY of the U. Stales; and, secondly, to llie
proposition that, for as much as this public proper
ty the territory of the United Stales, is not within
the jurisdiction of any particular Slate, it must of
neecssity he under the control of tiie United Mtates.
The right to institute these governments is traced
next to llie war-making und finally to treaty mak
ing power. A very brief remark upuu each of
these will enable me to pass that portion of the ar
gument upon which I desire more particularly to
address the Senate. It is scarcely necessary to dis
cuss the question witli regardAo the first power.—
The whole article, as well us the particular terms
used, manifestly coniines the power to ho exercised
lo the properly of tile United States—obviously
showing that llie power tocuutrol and regulate per
sons cannot be deduced from power to make rules
und regulations respecting properly. The distinc
tion is too,bread lo escape the most careless ob
server. Again, sir notwithstanding the confidence
with which high judicial decisions have been spo
ken of, I venture to say in this presence that this
power tins never yet been exercised—I mean the
power to organize a Territorial Government under
'.‘ .a clause ol the constitution; and 1 venture fur
ther loatlirm that there is no judicial decision—of
which political es-ajiats write so flippantly—that
there is no judical decision upon a question at is
sue before the court in wh eti tiie power is ascribed
to this source.
Willi respect to the second source of power, that
because it is not in tho jurisdiction of uny particular
.Stale, therefore ilinttst he in the jurisdiction of llie
the United Stales, I agree that it we conuld trace
llie power witli distinctness and accuracy lo tie
other source, this might he ui.o upon which Con
gress, in the exercise of its power to govern, con
sequent upon the right to acquire, and lru.it me
necessity of the tiling, might rely.
With respect to the war-milking power, unques
tionably territory might be acquired hy conquest,
not conveyed by treaty. There may lie a continued
hostile occupation unsupported by treaty ol cession
winch may by lapse ui lime, destroy tho right ol
the conquered party, llie right ot postliminium,
and therefore the fruits of conquest may he enjoy
ed without treaty. In that state of tilings unques
tionably, as to territory acquired hy file exercise
of the war-unking power, the power lo govern that
territory would he deduced Iron the same siurce.
But, sir, speaking generally, almost universally
be understood by a brief explanation, and hy the
application of it to the case before us. By tho
power which you have to enter in lo treaties with
foreign nations, you have acquired this Mexican
territory. If it were indispensable to you to resort
to tlic principle that the right to govern, I agree
that the right might he deduced from that source.
But this is necessary, for there is in the treaty an
express stipulation for tiie exercise of the power,
which is equivalent to a grant, under which we
are not only authorized, but bound to exercise il,
since treaties when they are not in conflict wit ll
the constitution, and wlien they are ratified by the
competent authorities of the nation, become the
supremo law of the land. Ill those treaties—in
ail of those which are treaties of cession—tho right
to receive llie ceded territories is accompanied hy
the express stipulation to govern, but the stipulation
to protect them in tiieir persons and their property,
can alone he done by government. Tho power,
then, to govern a territory which is acquired by
cession of a foreign nation, is a power deduced
from llie treaty hy which that territory is acquired;
which treaty, upon its ratification, becomes the
supreme law of the land.
And now, sir, I think you may sec what is the
reason that there is no express grant in the con
stitution to organize Territorial Governments.—
That reason may be found in the fact that there
was no necessity for its existence there. Cast
your recollection hack to tho period when the con
stitution was adopted—consider what were the
objects upon which this power to organize Terri
torial Govcrments could be exercised. They were,
first the uulocatcd territory of tiie United States
And what was that ? The great Northwestern
Territory, tiie subject of tho famous ordinance of
1787. Now, in respect to that territory, il was a
portion of the State nf Virgina. subject to the s iv-
creign law of Virginia. While Virginia, held it,
it was competent lor Iter to organize a government
there; and when the sovereignty of Virginia was
transferred to the Confederation, if the Confede
ration hail had tho power to receive the transfer, tho
sovereignly which had been heretofore in Virginia
might have been exercised hy the Confederation.
There is, 1 presume, scarcely a lawyer of the
present day who supposes that the Congress
of the Confederation had the power to do what they
did. But validity was given to their agency pro-
r d d by tl.e ordinance, to the state of till tgswhic.lt
existed under the new constitution, not hy that or
any other act of Congress, but hy the clause of the
constitution which declares that conlracls and en
gagements entered into by the Government of the
Confederation should he obligatory upon the Gov
ernment of llie United States established by the
constitution. Here then was a contract entered
into between Virginia and the Federal Congress
which was rendered valid by a stipulation of the
constitution of the United States. From that trans
fer ol tho sovereignty by Virginia, and this recog
nition of it hy the constitution of the United States,
is derived the authority lo orgnnizo governments in
these territories. When, therefore, Congress have
organized governments fur the several territories
parcelled out of thu .'■o.thwcstern Territory, they
ioivc not acted under the power which you nro now
calling into exercise, hut under the power derived
from the transfer of tiie sovereignty ol Virginia,
and tho provision of the constitution of the United
States, which gave validity to thu act.
That disposes of the first class of Territorial
Governments organized hy the United Stales, those
iii the Northwestern territory. Now, with regard
to lito second—that is, Governments which have
boon organized itr Territories which were hereto
fore portions of diflerent States of this Un'oii,
which were iinhiciitcd at the time of the adoption
of tho constitution, and which they havchy.subse
quent o.c-iainn, been transferred to the U. States,
l’recisely the same principle was applicable to
them as in the case which I have been consider
ing. Georgia ceded to the United States tin extent
of territory which now constitutes the two great
States of Alabama and Mississippi. While they
remained tin-T tho soivreignty nf Georgia it was
compel n lo her to hav ‘organiz'd Toirt trial Gov
ernments wituin 111 ir limits; but she ceded them
to tiie United Stales, and transferred, not merely
the soil, but hy tiie express terms, the sovereignly
and jurisdiction. Site did more. Shu stipulated
lor the organization of Territories. This was there
fore sufficient authority for establishing Territori
al Governments in the Territories of Mississippi
and Alabama, and in Tennessee, which was Ter
ritory ceded from North Carolina to tho U. States,
aud was in like condition.
Then there remains the other class of Territorial
Governments, organized upon Territory acquired
hy the United Stales from foreign Powers, and for
thu organization of Governments within United
States lo do whatever was necessary fur tho ful
filment of its treaty stipulations, which, hy the act
of ratification, became the supreme law of the land,
I suggest to you, then, sir, that this nluno fur
nishes a sufficient explanation, without resorting to
tiie supposition that our ancestors did not antici
pate the future extension of (lie limits of tho Re
public, why there was no express power to organ
ize Territorial Governments contained in the con
stitution—viz: that the grant of such power was
wholly unnecessary; that with regard to the un-
located Territory of the United States, that which
was within its li nits at the time ol tho form.itiun
of the constitution, it was competent for the Gov
ernment ol tho United States to establish Govern
ments hy virtue ol Ihu transfer of the sovereignly
id Virginia, and the recognition of thu validity of
that transfer as an engagement for the former
Government hy the constitution of the U. States;
that in relation lo territory within tiie limits of par
ticular States, the same power was acquired hy
the cession and transfer of sovereignty of tho ce
ding States. And with regal'd lo such territory
us should lie acquired from turoign nations, it was
competent to the Government of tho United States
tu establish Territorial Government in virtue of
treaty stipulations which they were authorized to
make and bound to execute.
I have endeavored to show, sir that llie power
which it is proposed lo exercise, and the excrciso
of which these resolutions contemplate—the pow
er lo prohibit shivery in the Territories—is not one
which can he derived from either of the sources
which I have staled, und tiiat (hero is no just de
cision or legislative precedent ill the organization
of Territorial Governments which will sustain the
exercise of such a power.
But, sir, il is attempted to rest this assumption of
authority upon certain legislative precedents un
connected with thu organization of the Territorial
Governments. It is said that Congress call pro
hibit slavery in the Territories in the organization
of Territorial governments, und that they have al
ready exercised thi s power in several instances.
Tne first which I iiave seen stated is the act of
1798, forbidding the importation of slaves into the
Mississippi Territory from without tho limits of
the United States. If Senators will recall to their
recollection tho discussions which have been had
upon this subject, they will remember that this en
actment lias been greatly reliod upon by those
who asserted tiie existence of this |iowor and urge
its applications to tiie territory for which govern
ments have now to bo organized. They will re
collect that when Congress, in 1798,prohikted the
importation of slaves from withiout the limits of
tho United Status into the Territory of Mississippi,
tiie inhibition in the constitution of the United
Sm.es which forbade interference witli the impor
tation of slaves into Status, under certain circum
stances specified in tiie clause, until 1808, was still
in full force.
And now the point of inquiry is this: was this
the excrei-e ol the power wnich you now conluin-
pi.ile. nr ot a totally distinct und diflerent power 7
ilirin tho last. Congress has the power to reg-
wars are terminated "by treaty, and tho conquests uiato the foreign and domestic commerce of the
are trun-ferred to the acquiring power by cession. United States, lho power lo inhibit the impor-
The real source and origin ot this power, there-1 t&tion of slaves from abroad was a power which
I li.r •, ar.' lo he found in tho treaty-m iking power, was restricted until the year 1808; and the exer-
• . • I '.natives. It might be implied us a lice- | eisc of mat power in 1788 by Congrosa was justi
n' totk'piv . to mike t."ati ■<, hut li J mmn the ground that inhi'iitiou did not extend
, tb ■ rest,: ■ i . v „ i . i- . . , | . t l me iiupur cion ut ivt:, mi *
| tioimti ole m tho exercise of that power. I shall | a territory. Those who choose to refer lo the words
of the constitution will find a justification of Con
gress in these terms. “ Tiie migration or impor
tation of such persons as any of the States now ex
isting slta'I think proper to admit shall not lie pro
hibited by the Congress prior to tho year 1808.”
What then ? Why simply that Congress was
not inhibited by this clause nf the constitution in
in the exercise of the power to regulate tho foreign
commerce of the United Slates, nor in so doing
from prohibiting tiie foreign slave trade in the Ter
ritory of Mississippi. But Congress did not ven
ture to exercise tiie power to prohibit the settler
from emigrating to tho Territory, and taking his
slaves with him, for domestic purposes, and estab
lishing his domicil there.
The act of 1801 prohibited the introduction of
slaves into Louisiana, from within or without the
United States. The act of 1801 was passed an
terior to the removal of the inhibition of the con
stitution ngaiust interference with tho slavo trade.
This, too, was in the exercise of the same com
mercial power of tho Government, which was not
confined to foreign commerce, but applied to the
interior commerce of lho States; and, in passing
that act, there was nn express reservation, showing
the intention of Congress to confine themselves
to the exercise of tho commorreial power: to for
bid tiie importation of slaves into those Territories
for the purpose of sale, and not to prohibit their
introduction by and for the use of the emigrant.—
That right is reserved. The right of the settler to
to emigrate there with his slaves is expressly al
lowed, the acts of 1807, 1818, and 1819, every
body will at once understand, were acts passed for
the purpose of exercising tho powers just then re
lieved from the fetters which the constitution had
imposed upon Congress, restraining it from inhibit
ing the foreign slave trade.
The next thing to which wo are frequently re
ferred in discussion here, is the Missouri compro
mise. That compromise, wo are told, was sustain
ed hy Southern us well as Northern men ; that it
was an admission of the power of this Government
to inhibit the introduction of slavery into the Ter
ritories, because, by it, slavery is inhibited North
of the prescribed line; and tiiat the power to pro*
Mbit it in any portion of the territory is the admis
sion ol the power to prohibit il in all territory.
Mr. President, in relation to tiiat subject I take
it for granted (1 was almost about to say) that gen
tlemen who use that argument do not deceive them
selves into it belief that the power which wasexer-
ercised in tiie Missouri compromise, was under
stood hy those who sustained it to be in any sense
within the constitution. In what was considered
a great crisis, menacing dangers ofa serious na
ture, they felt that they were authorized, urder
the pressure of the occasion, to assume the power
which they exercised, relying upon tho good sense,
intelligence, and patriotism of tiie people, to justify
the assumption—a power which the constitution
did not confer, und which they had no specific au
thority to exercise, lit other words, sir, 1 consid
er that the Missouri compromise was admitted un
der tiie influence of the principle stilus pub/ica tu-
premalex. It is a principle upon which, desiring
always, as far us it tnay be in my power, to keep
within the authority of the constitution, I should
not hesitate to stake myself in a case like
tiiat which was then presented, or like that which
is now presented. VVliile I believe, with all the
earnestness and the force of conviction which my
mind is capable of entertaining, tiiat Congress pos
sesses nn such power as that which is claimed, yet
if I could sec a prospect of peace hy consenting to
a line of division on the two sides of which, these
conflicting opinions might be indulged, by those
entertaining them, without disturbing each other,
I would cheerfully commit myself tun like exercise
of power, with a perfect understanding (h it I had
no authority lodu so ttpiui uny other principle (hail
that which I have stated
Now, sir, if tho power which we are consider
ing, to organize governments in the Territories,
cannot he deduced from either of the throe first
sources to which 1 have referred, but is derived
from the treaty-making power, then it is either an
implied power, and rests upon the principle tiiat
no implication can destroy, that elementary prin
ciple of equality which entitles every cilizen of the
United States to uu equal participation in the ter
ritory acquired, or il is an express power derived
(ruin llie stipulations of the treaty by which the
Territories wore acquired, anil then it is limited
by the terms of tiiat treaty to the fulfilment of (lie
objects for which it was conferred. It is a pow
er winch is conferred in terms for the protection
of tho citizens in their persons und property, and
cannot be extended beyond those limits to interfere
with tho essential rights which belong to every
member of this Confederacy.
Mr. President, that I may not unnecessarily
trespass upon the time of the Senate, I will now
with their indulgence proceed lo the consideration
of a question which lias been briefly discussed
here already this morning. I mean the question
whether a citizen of the United States who is the
owner of slaves has the right to remove with them
into the Territories of California and New Mex
ico ?
Now, sir, as a general proposition, personal
property attends thu person of the owner, and car
ries with it the rights which pertain to him where
he may hap|icn to be. But it is said that slavery
exists only by virtue of the positive law of the
Slates which’ tolerate it; that it cannot exist be
yond tin: limits of the Stale, and especially that it
cannot do so in tho Territories of California and
New .Mexico, because there are existing laws
there which inhibit it.
Sir, if it be possible, witli the indulgence of the
Senate, to show tiiat these propositions are un
true—that neither of them can be maintained—
wo shall have taken away from those who deny
the right for which I am contending, the only
grounds upon which they havo hitherto attempted
to rest it, and honorable senators must assign some
new reason for denial to the South of the right
which I am asserting—that of removing into those
Territories with their property of every description.
I will make a brief rein irk upon each of those
propositions. The first of them is that slavery
exis.s by force of positive law, and consequently
can only exist within the limits of the State en
acting that law. Mr. President, I really feel
some hesitation in yielding to (lie belief that it is
necessary, in the presence of the American Sen
ate, to repeat that this proposition is utterly un
founded in historical fact. There was not a Brit
ish colony in which slavery existed and into which
it was introduced by authority of law. Slavery
existed in every one of the British American col
onics, without being sustained by statute. Stat
ute laws can he found regulating a pre-existing
slavery; but statute laws cannot be found author
izing its introduction. What then? Slavery
does not depend upon statute laws, because it exist-
ted before there were any such laws authorizing
its existence.
In Massachusetts, slavery existed at a very oar-
ly period without any statute authorizing it. Nay,
slavery in Massachusetts was not confined to Af
ricans. The aborigines of llie country were re
duced and held in slavery, and were shipped from
their ports and sold as slaves. How then? If
this depended upon ,the law of Massachusetts,
wits there any such law authorizing the reduction
of Indians tu slavery, die transportation of them
tu llie West Indies, and tiie sale of them there ?
If there were none, did the venders mean to receive
tho purchase money for property which uoitlier
under their own laws, nor under any other, they
itad a right to hold ? To prove this, sir, consult
their own writors.
In my own Stato slavery did not exist at the
time of the settlement of tho colony, it was a
government of trusteos, instituted for liberal, char
itable and benevolent purposes, for a long time
resisting the introduction of slaves, under tue be
lief that the labor which they wished to carry on
could be more advantageously conducted by while
men. Experience taught them the reverse ; and
such was tiie pressure upon that government tlmt
they found it necsssary lo surrender their author!-
j utouareh, and a rojul government was
cstablidiod. But even then slavery was not es
tablished by statute, was not authorized by statute.
It was many years after slavery existed in Geor
gia that you will find tho first law on the statute-
book, recognising and regulating the existing in
stitution not introducing and establishing it.
Now, this is true in regard to all tiie States In
which slavery exists, that there was no law au
thorizing its’ introduction. It depended upon
something beyond the limit of tho Stale, and con
sequently was not confined to the limits of a
State. If any body shall desire to trace the his
tory of tho introduction of slavery iuto the United
States, it will be found to havo resulted from the
cupidity of llie English African Company; and
those unfortunate Africans who have so awaken
ed the sympathy of the people of the United States,
especially those of the free States, that, under its
influence, they are ready to trample upon the rights
of 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 most abject alavory.
It might have happened, in some instance out of a
thousand, that a free African was subjected to the
violence of the power engaged in the slave trade
but I say upon the authority of a writer of estab
lished reputation—a citizen from a free State—(I
refor to Mr. Bancroft’s work upon the colonies, now
open before me)—tiiat tho slaves which were
brought from Africa were persons who were con
victed of crimes, and reduced to slavery by way
of punishment—persons upon whom fines were
inflicted, and who were sold into slavery from tlioir
inability to pay such fines—and persons born in
a state of slavery. On the authority of the sumo
writers, I stale tlul threefourths of those persons,
imported from Africa, and here held in alavory,
were in a state of the most abject slavery in there
own country. They were the slavosofpetty African
chiefs—they and their children. And then the
sympathy which has been awakened on this sub
ject may find some alleviation by pursuing the in
quiry, whether the slave of a heathen chief in a
barberous land, has much cause to lament his re
moval to a Christian community, and his subjeC'
tiou to the moderate domestic slavery which ex
ists within the United States?—whether such a
removal rendered tiie condition of the transport
ed slave so much worse, as to justify the attempts
which have been made to produce an excite
ment that shakes this Union to its centre ?
I was speaking of the proposition which asserts
that slavery exists only by law, and it is limited
to the State in which it exists. I know that is the
doctrine laid down in Massachusetts and Connec
ticut ; but 1 think it is utterly impossible, with all
the respect which may bo entertained for the learn
ed judges by whom these opinions were pronounced,
for any man to read the repotts of them without
being sensible of tho influence (I have no doubt
unconcioiisly) operating upon the minds of the
judges tvho rendered them, from their own partic
ular opinions of the lawfulness of slavery. What
is the principle laid down then? It is this, viz:
that a negro or slave, when lie escapes from his
master aud comes within the State of Massachu
setts or Connecticut, is to be delivered up in obedi
ence to the constitutional provision on the subject
of fugitive slaves; but that a slave who comes
withhis master, who is voluntarily brought with
in their limits hy that master, although not for the
purpose of residence, hut transiently passing
through tlmt State in the exercises of his right as
an American citizen, that such slave is instantly
emancipated from the bonds of slavery in which
he is held in the State in which his owner dwells.
Now, sir, when it becomes necessary, when an
op|>ortunity is ottered, I desire tiiat that question
should he decided hy the supreme tribunal in the
United States. I agree that Massachusetts has a
right, as a sovereign State, to prohibit slavery
there, and site lias a right to prevent any porson
from coining and settling there with slaves ; but
that she lias a right to seize slaves of persons of
the United States, passing transiently through her
limits, is a right which cannot be admitted until it
is affirmed by a higher tribunal than that by which
it Ims been decided.
Mr. President, the true proposition, as I appre
hend, is this: Slavery exists m the State in which
tiie owner dwells—it exists out of the State in
which the owner dwells—once existing, it exists
everywhere until it eontes within the limits of a
sovereignty which inhibits it. I will not troublo
the Senate with reference to authorities; but the
proposition is so well laid down by the supreme
court of Louisiana, tiiat I present to you the fol
lowing extract from it:
“ Slavery, notwithstanding all that may have
been said and written against it, as being unjust,
arbitrary, and contrary to the laws of human na
ture, we find in history to have existed from earli
est ages of the world dowu to the present day.
lit investigating tiie rights of the parties now be
fore (lie court, it is deemed unnecessary to inquire
into the diflerent means by which one part of the
human race have in all ages become the bondnten
of the other, such as captivity, being the offspring
of those already enslaved, &.C., &c. However,
wo are of opinion that it may be laid down as a
legal axiom that in all governments in which the
municipal regulations art not absolutely opposed lo
slavery, persons already reduced to that state may
be held in it, and we also assumo il as a first prin
ciple, tlmt slavery has been permitted and tolerat
ed in all the colonies established ill America by
European powers, most clearly as relates to blacks
and Africans,” &c.
After stating that this accounts for tho absence
of any legislative act of European powers for the
introduction ol slavery into their American do
minions, the court adds:
“ If the record of any such act exists, we have
not been able to find any trace of it.”
Now, sir, applying this doctrine to the question
under consideration, persons brought to the United
Slates from the coast of Africa, who, according
to the laws existing there—for there arc laws, ana
classes or castes even in that barbarous country—
were in a state of slavery there, arc, upon the
principle of the decision of tiie supreme court of
Louisiana, slaves here; that is, the relation exist
ing between master and slavo, created upon the
coast of Africa, continues until the latter cornea
within a Territory whose municipal laws prohib
it it.
And here I want tho 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 conaidering.
You will observe, sir, that that question ia, whether
the property of an owner in his slave can exist
beyond the limits of the State in which the owner
dwells, and tinder the authority of whose laws he
is supposed to hold it. The clause referred to has
an important bearing upon the question. It is in
these words:
“ No person held to service or labor in one State
under the laws thereof, escaping into another,
shall, in consequence of any law or regulation
therein, bo discharged from such service or labor,
but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to
whom such service or labor may be due."
Such persons “ shall not be discharged," though
he is beyond tho limits of that State under the au
thority of whose laws he is supposed, aud under
that authority alone, to bo held in slavery. Al
though he is without the reach of that authority
by which, and by which alone, he owea service
and labor to Ilia owner, yet still, under this pro
vision of the constitution of the United States, be
shall not, in consequence o’f any law or regula
tion of any other Stale, bo discharged from such
service or labor. Why, air, if the position wera
true against which I am contending, that the slave,
whether by his own will or by the act of bit mas
ter, tho moment lie goes beyond the limits of the
State whoae laws autnorize him to be held in slave
ry, is released from his fetters—if that proposition
is true, the provision of the constitution mutt have
been expressed in very different terms. It would
uot have been necessary for the convention to
have provided, and they would not have provided,
that the fugitive should not le discharged from his
service ana labor in consequence of a law of the
h that dak.' The
ha asatttr. .They
sadinc ha did get be-
a Stats in winch bis master
loritr of wbeaa ksrsbewas
still a ala vs; tad
State into which he had i.
been already discharged > a . .
delivered up on ctalmordk pyrtoHlat
service or labor was due, Sat they coMd ndt Into
recognised the principle that it waaln/aeCdiM.as
the mere fact ot bis having passed the hodndary
of the State In which ha wan held in kayery
would have released him f
convention did 1 dot aoc
held that the slay*, note
yond the limits or the 8
dwelt, under the snthoriti
held in bondage, was still a slaw; and at they
have provided, not that be thamli m reeMMi to a
service and labor from Which ha had lain dis
charged or released, but that h* kmfd not he dis
charged or released from an netaallir eaheUting
debt of service and labor, in < uBMgnenenw any
laws or regulations of the Stale into which he
had escape, but should be' delivered up en the
claim of that party to whom each eertrieeor labor
may be due—thus recognising an actually sub
sisting present debt of service and labor beyond
the limits of the State which anthorind it
And still further, although the slave eaeaped
into a sovereignty inhibiting slavery, and bayou '
the State in which his master dwelt, yet the con
stitution recognises the owner’s title, even in the
sovereignly so inhibiting it, to that property de
rived solely under the Taws ad n State beyond
whose limits the slave had passed. Now,-if the
constitution of the United States recognises the
title of tho owner not merely within the limits of
his own State, as baa been the argument address
ed to us here, but within the limits of sovereign
States which inhibit slavery—if I have the right
to go within the sovereign State which eo inhibits
it, and claim my property which I bold under tho
laws ol my own State, I have a question to pro
pose, wnich I ask may be answered, not In the
strife of debate, nor with the feelings exeited in
a contest for victory in a discussion of this sort
nor yet to me or to the Senate, hot I ask every
senator to answer it to himaelf in the quiet retire
ment of his closet, communing with God and his
own conscience—If the constitution tf Ike country
recognises my title to the slant within sty 8taie,
beyond mu Sate, and within a sovereign State that,
inhibits slavery, does it forbid, does It deny that
title within a territory that is the common proper 1/
of the United States f If Meziean laws extinguish
it there, that is another question which I will con
aider presently.
Connected with this subject of the recover? of
fugitive slaves, there is one consideration which
in due time will probably attract tho attention of
the Congress and the government of the United
States. Looking to the obligation which the
United States have assumed, their constitutional
engagement to sec that fugitive slaves shall be
restored to their owners, ana to the decision of tiie
Supreme Court of the United Stains that this
provision takes the subject from the jurisdiction
of the several States, tons making it exclusively
an obligation on the part of the government of the
United States, one which they alone are bound to
fulfil, because, according to that decision, thev
alone have the power to fulfil it, it will become a
question, in all probability before a great lapse of
time, how far the Congress of the United States
is or is not obliged, if they do not provide ample
means tor the recovery of fugitive slaves, to re
deem the pledge which Is given in that clause by
making compensation for the slaves who are pre
vented from 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 Territories 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 limits of the States,
and if these rights were attendant xpon our per
sons wherever we go, yet when wo com* within
the limits of California and New Mexioo these
rights would cease, became there are their Mexi
can laws which forbid slavery within these limits
and that theee laws are obligatory upon us. Sir,
it is easy in general terms to assert propositions
of law and of fact which it becomes very difficult
to establish when the proof is required. Tbs pro
position, in the first place, is, that the laws of
Mexico forbid the existence of slavery; that there
were laws of this description existing in Mexico
at the time of the transfer of these Territories to
the United States. Then the proposition proceed *
with the assertioo of the obligmory powers of
these laws upon us. The first is in some sort a
S uestion of tact. I am very well aware of Bid
ecree of the Dictator, by which slavery was di -
clared to be abolished. I am perfectly aware of
the act of the Mexican Chngreia, referring to the
decree by which slavery was again abolished. I
am aware—and that ia tbs strongest paint in the
case of those who makes this assertion—that
since that period African slavery has not gener
ally existed in Mexico.
And now, with respect to the first of these de
crees, it is the decree of Guerrero, appointed a
dictator for a special pnrpoae, who, in the exer
cise of the powers which were then conferred,
promulgated this decree for the abolition of slave
ry. That that decree had no binding force or
efficacy, it requires no higher evidence to show
than the subsequent act of the Congress of Mexi ■
co. The one was the act of 1829, and the other
of 1837,1 believe.
Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, (interposing.) Of
1829and of 1837.
Mr. Berrien. The Mexican Congress passed
its act in 1837. The total invalidity of the decree
of Guerrero is manifested by this subaeqnent en
actment of the Mexican Congrsaa. Guerrero de
clared that slavery should not exist—that slavery
was abolished. That waa in 1899. Now, i:t
1837, the Mexican Cougresa declares that slaver/
shall not exist. The question which 1 have to
propose is, if the decree of Guerrero wars of any
efficacy, if slavery were abolished in Mexico by
force of the decree ol Guerrero in 1899, what
slavery remained in Mexico in 1887 to bo abol
ished by the net of the Mexican Con grass 7 Front
1829, supposing Guerrero's decree to be of validi
ty, there was no longer a slave within the broad
limits of the Mexican territory. How then w»a
it that, in 1837, the Mexican Congress found it
necessary to decree that tbs slavery which had
been abolished for the eight preceding yean shoo Id
be then reabolished, ana that prevision should be
made for the payment of the owners by scrip to
be issued by the govern me at upon personalvalu
ation ?
The only answer I think which the mart fertile
imagination could famish- to this inquiry is that
which is to bo deducted from the very anomalous
course ot many prooesdinm of that government.
But again: unless it oan be shown be tbs oonsti-
tutioo of Mexico that Bis Mexican Cwfrsss whs
invested with a power over this subject, I pray to
inquire of what validity could their sot have been ?
1 understand tbs Mexican confederation to have
been formed upon the model of oar own—that it
was an association of States, vesting certain pow
ers for federal purposes in the Mnviinn fhmgrnn i.
sod reserving to the several States thorn poweis
which were necessary to reiulats their domestic
concerns. I have also eodarstaed, mi merely
from a very superficial otraaslnation and limited
access to books upon this snbjirt, hot Aon con-
versatioo with intelligent penoae famtiinr with
the subject, that the power over thin nobject of
slavery belonged to the separate Starts of t'yo
Mexican republic, and not to tbs confederated Con-
gresa. I have looked iam the constitationof Mex-
■co, the only one to which I knvoJmd eeems, with
out.being able to discover nan grant of power by
which this net, which in strictly of dommtie ebar-
acter, should bo withdrawn (Vest the jarMktion
of the States and vested in the Mexican Gnwress.
What would be thought of enact of the Congress
of the United States declaring thatskrstyahoulj
no longer exist in three confederated Slates ?
But ex gratia, admitting tbs artbsrity of the
Mexican Congress to pass tUl'set, ioak ftps mo
ment at the character of the act, ito toMfe and
proviaiona. It waa not absolute tort maMonal
for which the act pitriflilt not
tcipation from its dale, baton
mentions, to be subsequently
ed conditions, to be subsequently oampfed with.
This sot shows veiy clesily Ihmths dhlrn of
Guerrero was iuvalid, won mew wake paper, or
else there could have been no mmority lw its
enactment. But it did art Maras men if the
MexicanCongress tad hsdthe piwm.anemauc-
psnoo which they designs* Intake sdhal m in-
stanti ftnmthe parangei* Ikeeatrrtnmkmpro
vided expressly for pnnmnt bother
the Bsoartniarattt of ihe vnhra af the n
negroes, upon appniiiminli founded
tonal inspection. Thom pssvirime af I
oonld never have bran os mm into stibrt,
emancipation had been
norriiit uiartbiflidc
toaUowMortbe purpose of Ike arawamit, its
full force and utmost valtdiiy, was, that the atgroca