lllffi Hill nil.".— -. 
 
 016 087 987 / 
 
 Conservation Resources 
 
SPEECH 
 
 p 685 
 , CopV ^ 
 
 OP 
 
 HON. S. BRENTON, OF INDIANA, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 RESOLUTION REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE OF ELECTIONS IN THE CON- 
 TESTED-ELECTION CASE FROM THE TERRITORY OF KANSAS. 
 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 20, 1856. 
 
 ^/■y 
 
 <>-^*'- 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE, i 
 
 1856, 
 

 ion 
 
 Resources 
 
KANSAS CONTESTED ELECTION. 
 
 •■ Mr. Erx-ENTON said : Mr. Chairman , more than 
 two weeks have passed since I obtained the floor 
 for the purpose of submitting some remarks to 
 the committee. During that time a debate of no 
 ordinary character has engrossed the attention of 
 the House and the country, and I am satisfied 
 that this day is the most unfavorable one wliich 
 could be selected to obtain a calm and patient 
 hearing on any subject. Notwithstanding this, 
 I design to submit a few remarks, in reference to 
 some of the topics discussed by the President in 
 his annual message, and which is now before the 
 committee. 
 
 The President, after a very brief " review of the 
 general state of the Union, including such par- 
 ticular concerns of the Federal Government" as 
 appeared to him most " desirable and useful to 
 bring to the notice of Congress," impliedly, at 
 least, assumes that the members of the present 
 Congress are in a state of ignorance as to the true 
 constitutional powers of the Government, and con- 
 sequently of their own powers. He, therefore, 
 1)roceeds to give them a very solemn and learned 
 ecture upon the subject; and labors especially to 
 enlighten them in reference to the original design 
 of the framers of the Constitution, the equality of 
 the States, and the end to be accomplished by the 
 formation of the General Government. And that 
 end, according to my reading and interpretation 
 of his language, was chiefly the extension, sup- 
 port, and protection of the domestic institutions 
 of one portion of the people of this Confederacy, 
 by which they are distinguished from the other. 
 Or, in the language of one of his most able sup- 
 porters, the message endeavors " to show that 
 Congress has no power to limit, restrain, or in 
 any manner to impair slavery; but, on the con- 
 trary, it is bound to protect and maintain it," not 
 only "in the States where it exists," but "where- 
 ever its flag floats and its jurisdiction is para- 
 mount." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, to those of us who have been 
 accustomed to look upon the American flag as it 
 floats proudly over the plains of Lexington and 
 Concord, and on the heights of Bunker's Hill, or 
 
 over the hundred battle-fields of the West, and 
 who have been taught to believe that it proclaimed 
 death to the tyrant and liberty to the captive, it 
 is a strange and startling announcement to hear 
 it proclaimed in the very cradle of freedom, that 
 this banner is unfurled to the breeze to serve as 
 a guide to the despot, and as a pledge of protec- 
 tion to the oppressor of his brethren. Such a 
 sentiment I hold to be a libel on the memory of the 
 patriotic fathers of our fli •i.in.s Republic. 
 
 Dismissing this sub)e( : the President proceeds 
 to lecture us on the hist"ry and progress of slav- 
 ery; and notwithstanding tlie fact that he stands 
 pledged before the whol< country to discount ■ 
 nance and discourage all agitation of the slavery 
 question, "either in Congress or out of it," he 
 opens up the whole subject, fn tn the foundation 
 of the Government to the pr ■ sent .,'ny, and at- 
 tempts to meet what he c?.'.!s .iie *'»,. \i',natory 
 charges of political agitators,'' sy an appeal t^. 
 " the voice of history," and "the principles and 
 facts of the political organization of the new Ter- 
 ritories of the United States;" and thus becomes 
 the very chief of agitators. 
 
 There may be an excuse for this, found in the 
 fact that the " presidential man^'ion" may be re- 
 garded as a kind of middle ground, or half-way 
 house, not being exactly " in Congress nor out of 
 it;" and thei^fore his pledges did not embrace 
 that locality. 
 
 In his attempts to discuss the constitutional 
 relations of slavery, I regret to find that the Pres- 
 ident, forgetful of the dignity of his position, has 
 shown an intimate acquaintance with all the catch- 
 words and cant phrases of the low demagogue: 
 and by their use attempts to excite prejudice 
 against all those in every section of the country, 
 who contend for the principles of freedom con- 
 tained in the Declaration of Independence and the 
 Constitution. They are^eld up to the world as 
 " sectional agitators," carried away by the " pas- 
 sionate rage of fanaticism," and impelled by a 
 " fanatical devotion to the interests of a few Afri- 
 cans" and "the zeal of social propagandism." 
 Such language will no doubt give a popular relish 
 
 i 
 
4 
 
 to his arguments in some sections of the country 
 and among certain classes of his followers. 
 
 In this connection the President charges all the 
 citizens of the United States who hold a different 
 opinion, and reject his conclusions, with enmity 
 to the Constitution and laws of the country. 
 
 Upon this charge they are arraigned, tried, and 
 convicted of ofienses, which he asserts " would 
 be cause of war as between foreign Powers, and 
 only fail to be such in our system because per- 
 petrated under cover of the Union. " 
 
 In behalf of my own constituents, I ask the 
 privilege of filing a bill of exceptions, and appeal 
 from this judgment to a higher tribunal — the sov- 
 ereign ]Dower of the people, to be expressed through 
 the ballot-box. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I design calling the attention of 
 the committee particularly to the position assumed 
 by the President in the following paragraph, 
 ■which is made the foundation of an extended ar- 
 gument, designed to prove that Congress has no 
 power to pi-ohibit slavery in the Territories. He 
 says: 
 
 "The ordinance for the government of the Territory 
 northwest of the river Ohio, liad contained a provision 
 which proliibited the use of servile labor therein, subject to 
 the condition of tlie extradition of fugitives from service 
 due in any other part of the United States. Subsequently 
 to the adoption of tlic Constitution, this provision ceased to 
 remain as a law ; for its operation as such was absolutely 
 superseded by the Constitution." 
 
 This declaration, to say the least of it, pos- 
 sesses the character of novelty. I am aware that 
 some statesmen in former times entertained and 
 expressed doubts as to the binding force of this 
 ordinance after the adoption of the Constitution, 
 for the reason that they supposed some of its pro- 
 visions were inconsistent with the principles of 
 that instrument. But it is not within my recol- 
 lection at the present time that any of them have 
 ever taken the ground that it " was absolutely 
 aupersc-'t- by the Constitution," and therefore 
 void. In al! the deljates and discussions of 
 modern times, by the most able and renowned 
 statesmen of any age or country, I do not find 
 that any of them ever assumed such a position; 
 but, on the contrary, it has been maintained, 
 executed, and carried out in all its provisions. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of the 
 committee while I briefly give my reasons for 
 disagreeing entirely with his Excellency, and of 
 presenting such proof as I may have at my com- 
 mand to show the incorrectness of Ifis conclusion. 
 And I must be permitted to express a fear that, 
 in his zeal to serve a particular interest, to obtain 
 favor in a certain quarter, and to place in a false 
 position the largest portion of the people of this 
 country, he has either forgotten or overlooked 
 the facts of history and the legislation of the 
 country. If the President is right, then the legis- 
 lation of the past has been and was wrong; the 
 statesmen of the past, for more than fifty years, 
 were guided by a false theory and an obsolete 
 ordinance; and a vast portion of the people of the 
 United States have been deluded, and continued 
 to live and act in ignorance of what is now claimed 
 to be their rights and privileges as citizens under 
 the Constitution. If the President is right, then 
 
 the citizens of the slavcholding States have been 
 cheated out of, and failed to avail themselves of, 
 the fairest opportunity ever afforded in the history 
 of this Government for the extension of their 
 " peculiar institution;" and their failure, resulting 
 from an ignorance of the law of the land, has hap- 
 pily proved to be the salvation of the Northwest 
 Territory from the blighting curse of human bond- 
 age. But for this ignorance the fairest portion 
 of this green earth — a vast extent of country 
 whose hills and dales, broad prairies and dense 
 forests, fertility of soil and salubrity of clime, 
 variegated scenery and natural advantages are not 
 surpassed, if equaled, by any other portion of 
 God's footstool — would to-day be cultivated by 
 " servile labor." 
 
 The President is not, however, without a mod- 
 ern precedent — especially if the dictum of one 
 man, high in authority and learned in the law, 
 can be regarded as a safe precedent. I find, in 
 the Washington Union of November 2,1855, the 
 following, purporting to be the opinion of the 
 present Attorney General on this subject. He 
 says : 
 
 " It has been adjudged, by a long series of decisions of 
 the Supremo Court, that the United States never lield any 
 municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in the 
 territory of which any of the new States are formed, except 
 for temporary purposes, namely: to execute the trusts cre- 
 ated by deeds of cession of Virginia, Massachusetts, Georgia, 
 and other States in the original common territory of the 
 Union, or by treaties with Prance, Spain, and the Mexican 
 Republic, in the territories of Louisiana, the Floridas, New 
 Mexico, and California. 
 
 "It has been adjudged by the same series of decisions 
 that the provisions of tlie ordinance for the organization of 
 the Northwest Territory were extinguished by the Constitu- 
 tion ; or, if any of them retain contiiming validity, it is only 
 so far as they may have authority derived from some other 
 source — either tlie compacts of cession or acts of Congress 
 under the Constitution." 
 
 If such decisions have been made, it has not 
 been my good fortune to find them. When were 
 these decisions made? By whom? And in 
 what case or cases ? These questions are easily 
 answered if it be true that " a long series of de- 
 cisions" have been made by "the Supreme 
 Court of the United States." And it is due to 
 the cause which the opinions of the President 
 and Attorney General are designed to sustain, 
 and also to the country generally, that some 
 portion of this "long series" be brought to light. 
 
 This ordinance was unquestionably known to 
 the convention which formed the Constitution, 
 and the subjects embraced in it were undoubtedly 
 carefully and earnestly examined by that body in 
 all their bearings. Is it not reasonable, then, to 
 suppose that if they had found in it anything in- 
 consistent with the equality of the States and 
 the principles of a republican government, they 
 would have said so, and have repealed it in ex- 
 press terms, and not left it for future adjudications 
 by the courts of the country? 
 
 Now, sir, it is a principle well established, and 
 understood by all, that when a law is "super- 
 seded" by subsequent enactment, or expires by 
 express limitation, it is void and inoperative; and 
 that when the conditions of any writing obliga- 
 tory are fully complied with, it ceases to have any 
 force or elTuct, cither in law or equity. Now, as 
 
the Constitution contains no provisions for the 
 government of the Northwest Territory, it fol- 
 lows as a natural consequence, according to the 
 teachings of the President and Attorney General, 
 that it had no organic law; the officers were " su- 
 
 fierseded" and tlie government " extinguished." 
 s this true? 
 
 As this question lies at the very foundation of 
 the controversy now agitating the whole country, 
 it is important to understand the facts of the case; 
 and this can only be done by ascertaining how 
 the question was treated by the Congress of the 
 nation, and how it was understood by the states- 
 men of that day. 
 
 That the President is wrong, I think can be 
 clearly shown by the " voice of history," by the 
 legislation of the country, and the opinion of the 
 statesmen of this day. No persons living within 
 the limits of that vast Territory regarded them- 
 selves as released from the binding force of any 
 part of that ordinance; so far from it, we find the 
 Governor and Legislative Council continuing to act 
 under it. They believed that they were specially 
 bound by the sixth article of that ordinance, 
 which prohibited slavery in the Territory. Hence 
 we find the Legislative Council, with many of the 
 citizens of the Territory of Indiana, sending their 
 memorials and petitions to Congress, asking for 
 a temporary suspension of the sixth article, so as 
 to allow, for a limited jjeriod, the introduction of 
 slave labor. 
 
 On the 25th of April, 1796, this subject was 
 presented to the House, and referred to a special 
 committee; on the 12th of May following, this 
 committee made a report against the prayer of 
 the petitioners. 
 
 On the 8th of February, 1803, memorials and 
 petitions on the same subject were again presented 
 to the House, and referred to a committee; and, 
 on the 2d of March following, Mr. Randolph, 
 chairman of the committee, reported as follows: 
 
 " That the committee deem it highly dangerous and inex- 
 pedient to impair a provision wiaelij calculated to promote 
 the happiness and prosperity of the' northwestern couiUry, 
 and to give strength and security to that extensive frontier. 
 In the salutary operation of this sagacious and benevolent 
 restraint it is beUeved tliat the inhaljitants of Indiana will, 
 at no very distant day, find ample remuneration for a tem- 
 porary privation of labor and of emigration." ] 
 
 Now mark. This ordinance is here pronounced I 
 (and very appropriately) a tt'ise one, and character- 
 ized as a " sagacious and benevolent restraint," j 
 and in its operations and beneficial effects as ' 
 "calculated to promote the happiness and pros- 
 perity of the northwestern country," and that 1 
 any attempt " to impair" it, would be, not only i 
 " inex23edient," but" highly dangerous." As an 
 Lidianian, I feel devoutly grateful to the memory i 
 of the man who lent his commanding influence i 
 in the early days of our Republic to maintain 
 inviolate the solemn compact of our fathers in j 
 favor of the cause of human freedom. And it is ] 
 underthc benign influence of this " sagacious and j 
 benevolent restraint" that Indiana has risen so i 
 rapidly, and in so short a time, to the high posi- 1 
 tion she occupies as a member of this mighty 
 Confederacy. It is to this ordinance chiefly, that ; 
 her people are indebted for their wealth, their j 
 
 intelligence, 'and commanding virtues. Is it then 
 to become a matter of wonder or astonishment 
 that her people, thus educated and elevated, should 
 ardently desire to see the residue of the territory 
 of the West consecrated to freedom? or that they 
 should feel a fixed determination to use all con- 
 stitutional and lawful means to prevent the ex- 
 tension of slavery? But this question continued 
 to be urged upon the attention of Congress, and 
 reports were subsequently made for and against 
 it. In November, 1807, the whole matter w^ 
 finally disposed of in both Houses of Congress. 
 A memorial from the Territorial Legislature, with 
 an able remonstrance from the citizens of Clark 
 county, were referred, on the 7th of November, to 
 a special committee of the Senate. Six days after, 
 Mr. Franklin, a Senator from North Carolina, 
 chairman of the committee, reported as follows: 
 
 '■'Resolved, That it is not expedient, at this time, to sus- 
 pend the sixth article of the compact for the government 
 of the Territory of the United States northwest of the river 
 Ohio." 
 
 This report Avas cojicurred in by the Senate on 
 the 17th day of November, and on the same day, 
 a similar report was made in the House; and here 
 the matter rested. Thus, sir, I have briefly traced 
 the history of the movements of the people on 
 this question, so far as the citizens of my own 
 State were concerned. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, how much time, trouble, and 
 anxiety, as well as bitter feeling and excitement, 
 might have been avoided, in Congress and out of 
 it, if this new interpretation had obtained, and 
 been understood in that day. 
 
 The various committees of the Senate and 
 House, instead of discussing the question and 
 making elaborate reports for and against the 
 prayers of the memorialists, might have settlerl 
 the whole controversy by simply informing thog; 
 interested that the sixth article of \h<. .;dinance 
 had " ceased to remain a law;*' i\\v.' " ^ "J, opera- 
 tion as such was absolutely ^u'x •*^''<^':''' oy the 
 Constitution," that all its " provu^ions \v:n- extin- 
 guished;" and therefore they were at liberty to 
 introduce servile labor into the Territory, and 
 hold slaves at their pleasure. 
 
 But letus now examine the history of this ques- 
 tion a little further in connection with the pos- 
 itive legislation of the country; and see whether 
 any Congress has ever regarded the ordinance in 
 any of its parts as cither "superseded" or "ex- 
 tinguished by the Constitution." And here I 
 assert that every act of Congress under the Con- 
 stitution , relating'to the division and organization 
 of the different parts of the Northwestern Terri- 
 tory, recognized the existence of this ordinance 
 and enforced its provisions. To sustain this posi- 
 tion, I call the attention of the committee to the 
 following proviso in the act authorizing the people 
 of Ohio to form a constitution and State govern- 
 ment, approved April 30, 1802. It is as follows: 
 
 " That the same shall be republican, and not repugnant 
 to the ordinance of tlie 1.3th of July, 1787, between the ori- 
 ginal States and the people and States of tlie territory north- 
 west of the river Ohio." 
 
 Further, in the act of April 16, 1816, prepara- 
 tory to the admission of Indiana into the Union, 
 
 ; 
 
6 
 
 Congress declares, that the Government " shall 
 be republican, and not repugnant to those articles 
 of the ordinance of the 13th of July, 1787, which are 
 declared to be irrevocable between the original 
 States and the people and Slates of the territory 
 northwest of the river Ohio." 
 
 Again, as late as 1836, I find Congress using 
 the following language in the act organizing the 
 Territory of Wisconsin: 
 
 "That the inhabitants of the said Territory shall be en- 
 titled to and enjoy all and singular the rights, privileges, and 
 advantages granted and secured to the people of the ter- 
 ritory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio by 
 the articles of compact contained in the ordinance for the 
 government of the said territory, passed th.o 13th day of 
 July, 17S7 ; and shall he su'ject to all the conditions, re- 
 strictions, and PUOHiBiTioNS in said articles of couipact 
 imposed on the people of the said territory." 
 
 Thus, Mr. Chairman, we have shown that all 
 the legislation of the country, from the first ses- 
 sion of Congress under the Constitution, down 
 to 1836, in reference to the Northwest Territory, 
 embraci)ig its division and subdivisions, until 
 every part was clothed with sovereign power as 
 independent States, recognized the existence of 
 this ordinance and enforced its provisions. 
 
 Permit me now to call the attention of the com- 
 mittee to the views entertained and ably expressed 
 by a very distinguished gentleman from Georgia, 
 [Mr. Toombs,] who, it appears, entertains a differ- [ 
 ent opinion from that expressed by the President ; 
 and his legal advisor. In a lecture delivered by l 
 this gentleman in Boston on the 26th of January i 
 last, he says: 
 
 "_That ordinance was adopted on the 13th day of July, 
 1787, before the adoption of tlie Constitution. Jt "purported 
 on its face to be a perpetual compact between the State of 
 Virginia, the people of that Territory, and the then Govern- 
 ment of the United States. It was unalterable except by 
 the consent of all the parties ; when Congress met for t!ie 
 ir>t :inip under the new Goveniwent on the 4th day of 
 /arch, 178y, it found the gi vernment established by virtue 
 of this "'din.Tnce in actual operation; and on the 7th of 
 At'.u"^l I'^y, It pa.ssPd. an act making the offices of Gov- 
 ernor a., oecr^.ify ,„ the Territory conform to the Federal 
 Constttuti<>ii. ii iiid nothing more; it made no reference to, 
 it took no action upon, the sixth and la*t section of the ordi- 
 nance, which prohibited slavery. The division of that Ter- 
 ritory was provided for in the ordinance ; at each division the 
 Whole of the ordinance was assigned to eacli of its parts." 
 
 And this opinion he has recently expressed 
 more fully in the Senate; and while I differ with 
 liim in his conclusions drawn from the facts thus 
 ably presented, I fully agree with him that the 
 ordinance retained all its vitality after the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution, and was " unalterable, 
 except by the consent of all the parties." 
 
 Now let us take another view of this question, 
 and, for the sake of argument, suppose that the 
 President and his Attorney are right. Then, I 
 ask, what was there to prevent the introduction of 
 slavery into the Northwest Territory .' We have 
 shown before, that the Legislative Council, with 
 many of the citizens of Indiana, desired it, yet 
 they did not introduce it. Slaveholders did not 
 go there. And why.' What insuperable barrier 
 existed to prevent them from gratifying their de- 
 sire and carrying out their wish .' If the citizens 
 of the Territories have the right noiv to regulate 
 their " own domestic institutions," independent 
 of Congress, surely they had the same right and 
 power then. 
 
 VVhat impassable gulf was there to prevent the 
 citizens of Virginia and Kentucky from taking 
 possession of the soil, and cultivating it by " ser- 
 vile labor.'" Were they deterred by the"lifeles3 
 carcass of an " extinguished" ordinance.' Such 
 an idea would not be a very high compliment to 
 the " brave hunters of Kentucky," or the bold 
 and fearless pioneers of the western forests. If 
 it was not this, what was it.' Slavery was pro- 
 hibited — but how.' I answer, that it was either 
 by a recognition, on the part of all the people, of 
 the existing, binding force of all the provisions of 
 the ordinance itself, or by direct intervention on 
 the part of Congress under the Constitution, in 
 its various enactments for the organization of 
 territorial government*. If it was the latter, then 
 it follows that Congress recognized the power to 
 legislate on the subject of slavery in the Territo- 
 ries, which they uniformly continued to do until 
 every part of the territory was organized and ad- 
 mitted into the Union as sovereign, independent 
 States. If it was the former, then all subsequent 
 legislation was designed simply to recognize and 
 enforce the ordinance according to- its true and 
 original intent and meaning. My view of the 
 whole question is, that the ordinance continued 
 to exist, and possessed vitality in itself, as fully 
 and completely after the adoption of the Constitu- 
 tion as before its adoption; and that Congress 
 possessed the power to enforce it — a power not 
 derived from the ordinance, but from the Consti- 
 tution. And further: that the same power which 
 enforced the sixth article of the ordinance in one 
 part of our Territory, can also extend it to any 
 and every other Territory of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, having said all that I conceive 
 it necessary now to say in reference to the North- 
 west Territory, I leave it to the committee and the 
 country to determine whether the facts presented 
 do not fully sustain the conclusion to Vv^hich I 
 have come, in opposition to the views of the Pres- 
 ident; also, the additional conclusion, that Con- 
 gress has not only recognized, but uniformly ex- 
 ercised, the power to prohibit the introduction of 
 slavery into the Territories. 
 
 In reference to the decisions of the Supreme 
 Court, alluded to by the Attorney General, I shall 
 take great pleasure in examining them when they 
 are presented. 
 
 I now desire to call the attention of the com- 
 mittee, very briefly, to some of the subsequent 
 acquisitions of Territory by the United States, 
 and the action of Congress in reference to them, 
 for the purpose of showing a further recognition 
 of the power of prohibition. 
 
 In 1790 that portion of country now comprising 
 the State of Tennessee was ceded to the United 
 States liy the State of North Carolina. At the 
 close of the fifth condition in the deed of cession 
 is the following proviso: 
 
 " ProvUled always, That no regulations made, or to be 
 made, by Congress shall tend to emancipate slaves." 
 
 Now, the question which naturallj' arises here 
 is, if Congress had never "made" any regula- 
 tions to prohibit slavery, and if it possessed no 
 power to make such regulations, why did North 
 Carolina make this condition in her deed of 
 
cession? The answer is, that she recognized the 
 power, and knew that the principles of the United 
 States Government were hostile to the extension 
 of slavery; and that the power would probably be 
 exercised in this case; therefore, she determined 
 to restrain it by express and positive stipulations. 
 And Congress by accepting this condition did not 
 suri'endcr or disavow its power, but on the 
 grounds of expediency yielded to the request of 
 North Carolina; and the Representatives of the 
 free States, always recognizing the binding force 
 of solemn compacts between sovereign States 
 and the United States, subsequently carried it out 
 in good faith in the territorial organization of 
 Tennessee. 
 
 The act of Congress, approved March 26, 1804, 
 for the government of the Territory of Orleans, 
 shows in a very especial manner the deep solici- 
 tude of Congress to prohibit the extension of 
 slavery, and its abhorrence of the slave trade. 
 The tenth section declares as follows: 
 
 " It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to im- 
 port or briiin; into tlie said Territory, from any i>ort or place 
 vjithout the limits of tlio United States, or cause or procure 
 to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist 
 in so importing or bringing any slave or slaves." * * * 
 " It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to import 
 or bring into the said Territory, from any port or place within 
 the limits of the United States, or cause or procure to be so 
 imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist in so im- 
 porting or bringing any slave or slaves, v/hich shall have 
 been impoiled since the 1st day of May, 1798, into any port 
 or place within the limits of the United States, or which 
 may hereafter be so imported, from any place without the 
 limits of the United States." * * * * "And no slave 
 or slaves shall, directly or indirectly, be introduced into said 
 Territory, except by a citizen of the United States removing^ 
 into said Territory for actual settlement, and being at the 
 time of such removal bona fide owner of such slave or 
 slaves." 
 
 This act prohibits the importation of slaves 
 from without the United States, the migration 
 from the States of such slaves as had been im- 
 ported into any of the States after the 1st of May, 
 1798, and restricts the migration of such slaves 
 as had been born in the United States to the 
 bona fide owners, and to the actual settlers of the 
 Territory. And this law provides for the free- 
 dom of slaves that should be brought into the 
 Territory in violation of its provisions, and im- 
 poses a heavy penalty on all who should violate it. 
 
 It will be observed that this law is retrospect- 
 ive, and embraces a class of persons who had 
 been in the United States nearly six years, and 
 were in tlie possession of citizens of the various 
 States, and were held under the laws of the State 
 where they resided as property; and yet, while 
 Congress says, impliedly, you- may hold them as 
 such in the States, you shall not take tlicm into 
 this Territory. 
 
 Here we have a most striking instance of con- 
 gressional interference and prohibition, not only 
 of " importation" from ivUliout, but of " migra- 
 tion" loiihin, the United States. ]\Iy conclusion, 
 till refore, is, that the same power which prohib- 
 ited the introduction into the Territories of im- 
 ported slaves, can also prohibit the migration into 
 the tame Territories of those born in the United 
 Stat. s. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I am deeply sensible of the im- 
 portance and delicacy of this whole question; and 
 feeling a deep solicitude for the welfare of my 
 country, I am not indiffre'it to the feelings ex- 
 cited, and the sensations jVi-i^dnced, by its discus- 
 sion. But as the question is forced upon us by the 
 President, it must be met; and we owe it to every 
 part of the country to nL.rt it fairly, openly, and 
 firmly. And while I would not utter a word, or 
 indulge a feeling detrimental to the constitutional 
 rights and privileges of any portion of the inhab- 
 itants of any section of the Union, yet, with my 
 understanding of the purposes and designs of the 
 framers of our Government, and guided by the 
 example and precedents of the fathers of the Re- 
 public, I take my stand firmly and unwaveringly 
 on the broad ground of constitutional opposition 
 to the extension of slavery; and having witnessed 
 the benign influences and happy effects of the 
 ordinance of '87 on the happiness and prosperity, 
 intelligence and virtue, of the citizens of the States 
 formed from the Territories to wliich it Was ori- 
 ginally applied, I shall, on all occasions, give my 
 influence and voice in favor of its extension in 
 form or substance to all our Territories, and thu3 
 secure a free soil to be cultivated by free men, 
 according to the principles of the Declaration of 
 Independence, the Constitution of the Govern- 
 ment, the legislation of the country, and the de- 
 signs of the fathers of our glorious Republic. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, there is another phasi; of the 
 general question of slavery, not directly embraced 
 in the message now before the committee, which 
 I propose to discuss at some future time. It is 
 what is so frequently spoken of as the nationality 
 of slavery. Tliis claim to nationality is based on 
 what is recognized as the universal law of prop- 
 erty. The argument is, tltat, inasmuch '•a a cit- 
 izen of Georgia has a right to carry his pro;iertv 
 such as horses, sheep, and oxen, his f- 
 utensils, and household goods, into vi.-j'' >^^ 
 the Union, and claim the protection of the 
 so ho has the same right to fike AvJ'.''^" 
 any State, hold them at pleasure, and th 
 the aid of the law for his protection. Thi 
 of this policy would be to carry slavery 
 every State of this Union, and to subvert 
 destroy the whole machinery of our free insti 
 tions. Are those who advocate this princip. 
 aware of one consequence which would follow 
 its establishment.' and are they prepared to meet 
 it i The power and jurisdiction of the national 
 Legislature extend to all national questions. Make 
 slavery national, and you bring it within that 
 jurisdiction; and Congress must take cognizance 
 of it wherever it exists, and may legislate in ref- 
 erence to it, according to their own will and pleas- 
 ure. And the adoption of this policy would be 
 destructive of the v/ell-established and univer- 
 sally-recognized principle , that Congress possesses 
 no power to interfere with, or legislate on, the 
 subject, as it now exists, sectionally, in a portion 
 of the States of this Union. 
 
 I have thus merely stated the question, and 
 shall hold myself in readiness to meet it at any 
 future time. 
 
LIBKHKY Ul- «-UWijKtdo 
 
 016 087 987 7 f 
 
f^ve 
 
II pi 
 
 016 087 987 7 
 
 Conservation Resources 
 Lig-Free® Type I 
 Ph 8.5, Buffered