TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS. SPEECH # OF HON. KINSLEY S. BINGHAM, OE MICHIGAN. DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U. STATES AUGUST 7, 1848. WASHINGTON: J. AND G. S. GIDEON, PRINTERS. 1848 . I SPEECH. The Ilouge having under^onsideiation the message of the President relative to the boundary of Texas— Mr. BINGHAM addressed the Chair as follows : Mr. Speaker : Without the least expectation of enlightening this House upon the subject I propose to discuss, I am anxious that my constituents should understand the reasons which will govern my action upon the organization of territories. Within the last four years the Uni¬ ted States have acquired by annexation and treaty a territory embracing, in extent,'a million of square miles, including several parallels of latitude, and stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. The first acquisition containing three hundred thousand square miles has become one of the sovereignties of this Confederacy, and is known as the State of Texas. The latter embracing a large portion of the country, known as New Mexico and California, has been acquired by a treaty at the termination of a war with Mexico, and has become territory of the United States. By the joint resolutions for-the annexation of Texas, four additional States were authorized to be made within its limits, and the proposition, that slavery should be pro¬ hibited within two of those States received but little favor in this House, only forty members voting in the affirmative. Congress did, itis true, go through the hollow form of insisting that in <‘the States formed out of that portion of Texas tying north of the line of thirty-six degrees and. thirty minutes slavery should be forever prohibited,” but it accepted the Constitution of the State of Texas, which precludes the Legislature of the State from enacting “any law for the emanci¬ pation of slaves without the consent of their owner's,” and no authority is granted to prevent the introduction of slavery into any part of the State. Soon after the annexation of Texas the Government became involved in a war with Mexico, and it was made apparent at an early day that the only means of settling the unhappy difficul¬ ties, in which the two Republics were involved, would be by cession of territory from Mexico to the Government of the United States. And in the first session of the last Congress, more than two years ago, the President asked an appropriation of two millions of dollars to enable him to conclude a treaty of peace, with the understanding that territory was to be acquired. That appropriation was made by the popular branch of Congress, and in passing it they gave a distinct intimation to the Executive and to the world, “that as an express and fundamental con¬ dition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use of the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall eve/exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall be first duly convicted.” This provision was sanctioned by a majority of fourteen in the House of Representatives, but failed to become a law for the want of action by the Senate. At the subsequent session of the last Congress a similar provision was engrafted on to an appropriation for a like purpose, by a majority of nine, but it was stricken out by the Senate, and this House concurred by a small majority. Mean time the attention of the country was awakened to the subject, and the Legis¬ latures of a large majority of the free States, my own among the number, gave utterance to the nearly unanimous sentiment of the people, by the passage of resolutions, calling upon Congress to prohibit the extension of slavery over territory to be acquired from Mexico where it had never existed. * ' Upon the justice and propriety of this war, parties were divided—one party charging that it was unconstitutionally begun, and that it was waged against a feeble and semi-barbarous people for the purposeof conquest, and to enable the slaveholder to extend over its vastand fertile plains the “peculiar institutions” of the South. The other insisting that, being commenced by Mexi¬ co, its prosecution on our part was just and honorable; that “indemnity for the past and security for the future was its object; that the extensfon of slavery was not its design; and that if territo¬ rial indemnity was obtained the ‘area of freedom’ would be enlarged and extended thereby.” This expensive, but glorious war, which has shed such distinguished lustre upon the prowess of our arms, has been brought to a close. This vast tract of country has parsed into our pos¬ session, and Congress has been called upon by the Executive to make “rules and regulations for its government.” Shall the wise, beneficent, and humane provisions of the ordinance of 1787 be extended over it, or shall it be doomed to the blighting influences of slavery? I confess, Mr. Chairman, that aside from the consequences, either for good or evil, that are to flow from the settlement of this momentous question, I consider the honor and’the character of the country involved in it. The founders of the Republic, and the framers of the Constitution, spared no efforts to prevent the increase of slavery by importation, and its* spread into territories which it had not yet reached ; and if in that day they had discovered, to use the language of Mr. Monroe, “that this evil had preyed upon the very vitals of the Union, and had been prejudicial to all the States in which it had existed;” and if they desired, in the eloquent language of Patrick Henry, “that an opportunity might be offered to abolish this lamentable evil,” surely we should. not be held guiltless in this day of progress, so peculiarly devoted to the elevation and improve¬ ment of the race of man, and to the amelioration of his condition, were we to hesitate to declare that over this extensive acquisition^'neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever be known, except in the punishment of crime.” Yet, Mr. Speaker, great as the evil is acknow¬ ledged to be, disgraceful as would be the stigma which would attach to our Government were we to conquer and acquire free territory that slavery might be extended over it, we should yet hesitate, if the powers were not conferred upon us, and if we had not clearly the right to prohibit its introduction. Writers upon the law of nations, whose authority is everywhere received, and nowhere dis¬ puted, seem to concur in what is apparent to every, ordinary understanding, that the power to acquire carries with it the power to govern ; and Yattel informs us, that the right of a people to a country ^implies two things : “ 1. The domain , by virtue of which the nation alone may use the country for the support of its necessities, may dispose of it as it thinks proper, and derive from it every advantage it is capable of yielding. 2. The empire , or the right of sovereign com¬ mand, by which the nation directs and regulates, at its pleasure, everything they possess in the country.” '> “ When a nation takes possession of a country, to which no prior owner can lay claim, it is considered as acquiring the empire , or the sovereignty of it, at the same time with the domain. Forj since the nation is free and independent, it can have no intention, in settling in a country, to leave to others the right of command, or any of those rights that constitute sovereignty.”— Yattel, book 1, chap. 18, sec. 204, 205. From this authority I think it cannot be doubted that, in the acquisition of territory, whether by treaty or conquest, th$ gove rnpi ent of it follows, and is a necessary consequence of possession. But, Mr. Speaker, in my judgment’, the righifto legislate for the Territories of the United States, or to establish governments .over them, is clearly conferred by the Constitution. It says : “The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations re- specting*the territory or other property of the United States.’’ The words “ rules anjl regula¬ tions” conferred, I think, beyond question, legislative authority, and were understood to be .equal to, and synonymous with, the power of making laws.* This construction is made per¬ fectly apparent by the Constitution-itself; for, by it power was given to Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations“ to make rules concerning captures ;” “ to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces ;” “ to alter State regulations in respect to the time, place, and manner of holding elections;” “to coin money, and regulate the value thereof;” and they were forbidden “ to give preference, by any regulation of commerce, to the ports of one State over the ports of another:” and the appellate' jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in certain cases was made subject to “ such regulations as Congress should make.” In regard to territories, the words “ rules and regulations ” were both used; and the framers of the Constitution, the expounders of constitutional law, and the Supreme Court of the United States, all concur that these words confer upon Congress the power of making laws, and of legislating over, and for, the Territories; and that by them Congress was not limited to a simple disposition of the land ; so that even if the Government did not own a foot of the land, or after it was all disposed of, the same right to govern was conferred by the Constitution ; and that until they are admitted into the Confederacy as States, they are under the absolute control and direction of Congress. o • _ Mr. Justice Story, in his work on the Constitution, says : “As the General Government pos¬ sesses the right to acquire territory either by conquest or by treaty, it would seem to follow, as an inevitable consequence, that it possesses the power to govern, what it has acquired. The territory does not, when so acquired, become entitled to self-government, and it is not subject to the jurisdiction of any State. • It must consequently be under the dominion and jurisdiction of the Union, or it. must be without any government at all. No one has ever doubted the authority of Congress to erect territorial governments within the territory of the United States, under the general language of the clause, ‘ to make all needful rules and regulations.’ What shall be the form of government established in the Territories depends exclusively upon the discretion of Congress. Having a right to erect a territorial government, they may confer upon it such pow¬ ers, legislative, judicial, and executive, as they may deem best. The power of Congress over tiie-public.territory is clearly .exclusive and. universal, and their legislation is subject, to no con¬ trol, but is absolute and unlimited, unless so far as it is affected by stipulations in the cessions. 5> Wi. 3, pp. 193-198. “The court of last resort, in the State of New York, in the case of Williams as, The Bank of Michigan, 7 Wendell R. 554, say: ‘All power possessed by the Government of Michigan was derived from the act of Congress. Territories have no reserved power, as in the case of States admitted into the Union; the authority of Congress is supreme and unlimited, unless made other¬ wise by the cessions of lands composing those territories. ’ « “And in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of McCullock vs. The State of Maryland, decided in 1819, 4 Wheatpnf 422, Chief Justice Marshall, who delivered the opinion of the court, commenting on the authority of Congress to make laws for executing granted pow¬ ers, refers iii illustration to ‘the universal acquiescence in the construction which has been uni¬ formly put on the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, and says: ‘the power to- 5 ‘make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to> the United States,’ is not more comprehensive than the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution ‘ the powers of government;’ yet all admit the constitutionality of a territorial government.’ “In the case of the American Insurance Company vs. .Canter, decided in 1828, 1 Peters, 542, Chief Justice Marshall, who delivered the opinion of the court, commenting on the sixth article of the treaty ceding Florida to the United States, and declaring that its inhabitants are to be ‘ad¬ mitted to the enjoyment of all the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States,’says ‘ it is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition, independent of stipulation. They do not lioivever 'participate in 'political 1 power; they do not shace in the govern- nfent till Florida shall become a State. In the mean time Fonda continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Con¬ gress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belong¬ ing to the United States.’ ” f )n page 542 of that case the court say : “ The Constitution .confers absolutely on the Gov¬ ernment of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties. Consequently, that Government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or treaty .” Again, on the same page, the right to make laws for a territory is thus spoken of: “ Perhaps the power of governing a territory of the United States, which has not, by becoming a State, acquired the means of self-government, may result necessarily from the fact, that it is not within the jurisdic¬ tion of any particular State, and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States. The right to govern may be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory; but which¬ ever may be the source whence the power is derived, the possession of it is unquestioned .” In the case of ,the United States, vs. Gratiot, 14 Peters, 637, Judge Thompson, who delivered ‘ the’opinion of the court, commenting on the power given to Congress by the fourth article, third section, of the Constitution of the United States, says: “ This power is vested in Congress without limitation ; and has been considered the foundation upon which the territorial govern¬ ment rests.” In the case of McCullock vs. The State of Maryland, the Chief Justice, in giving the opinion of the court, speaking of this article and the power of Congress growing out of it, applies it to territorial government, and says, “ all admit their constitutionality.” And again, speaking of the cession of Florida, (in the case of the American Insurance Company vs. Canter,) under the treaty with Spain, he says that “ Florida, until she shall become a State , continues to be a territory of the United States, governed by that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States.” In the case of Schooner Exchange vs. M’Faddon and others, 7th Cranch, Judge Marshall says : “ The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and abso¬ lute. It is susceptible of no limitations not imposed by itself. All exceptions, therefore, to the full £nd complete power within its own territories, must be traced up to the consent of the nation' itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.” Again, in the case tff the American Insurance Company vs. 356 bales of cotton, 1 Peters’, the court say : “ Until Florida shall become a State, she continues to be a territory of the U. States, governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress 4 to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United States.’ ” These views have been carried out in the acts of the Federal Government, from its commence¬ ment to the present day, without dispute or exception. In the cessions of territory by the States of New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, and others, under the old Confederation, “ the right, interest, title of soil, and jurisdiction ,” was relinquished to the Confederated Government. Under that cession the ordinance of 1787—a measure which confers such high honor upon the name of the illustrious Jefferson—was framed ; and by one ojL its provisions slavery was excluded from the territory northwest of the Ohio. The first Congress* under the new Constitution passed an act, in the preamble of which they declare that, “ Where¬ as, in order that the ordinance of the United States, in Congress assembled, for the government of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, may continue to have full effect, it is requisite that certain provisions should be made, so as to adapt the same to the present Constitution of the United States.” Thus was U full effect ” given to the ordinance, under the present Constitution, by a Congress composed of many of the men, who aided in passing the ordinance, in framing the Constitution, and of statesmen who were contemporaneous with them. If, then, Mr. Speaker,‘Congress was vested, by the Constitution, and by the .re-enactment of the ordinance, with authority to govern the Territories, to exercise legislative powers over them, or to establish territorial govern¬ ments, that right of legislation is only limited by the prohibitions of the Constitution; and so they may legislate in relation to slavery. Until within a few years past, this right does not seem to have been questioned; and from ihe year 1790, down to* the present day, under Federal and Democratic administrations, the statute books, organizing territorial governments, arc filled with precedents. So well convinced of this right to legislate were southern statesmen, that in 1790, when the State of North Carolina ceded to the United States a portion of her territory west of the mountains, she made this reservation, that “no regulation made by Congress shall tend to 6 emancipate slaves .” This quotation furnishes the most conclusive proof that the word regulate was understood to correspond with law, and that the State of North Carolina believed that, if the reservation had not been made, Congress could have exercised the power of emancipating slaves.” The act of 1793, in relation to the capture and return of fugitive slaves, is made to apply to ter- .ritories, although the words of the Constitution are, that “no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or reg- ulation therein, be 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.” I have never heard any of my strict construction friends of the South, object to the constitu¬ tionality of this act. They seem perfectly willing that Congress should aid them in the capture of their fugitive slaves, escaping from a State into a Territory , or from a Territory into a State, or from one Territory into another. The authority under which that act was passed could only have been conferred by the clause which gives Congress the power to “make rules and regula¬ tions respecting the territory or other property belongingto the United States;” and a cheerful acquiescence seems to have been given to it, by all parties. But when we propose to exclude slavery from free territory, the power is denied; and we are told that we are inflicting a deadly ;*tab at the Constitution. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that in the passage of laws in relation to territories, in the organiza¬ tion of territorial governments, in reserving the right of annulling acts of territorial legislation, in the actual exercise of that power, Congress has asserted and exercised legislative authority upon all subjects, including slavery,* and has declared, by repeated acts, that she possessed abso¬ lute sovereignty over her territorial possessions. Ought Congress to exercise this right over these new and valuable acquisitions, just obtained from- Mexico? - 'Regarding shivery as a politiekl evil, aa-a hmdranCerto the growth and prosper¬ ity of a State, as an element of weakness wherever it exists, as wholly incompatible with that degree of intelligence which makes labor either respectable or profitable, I insist that we should fail to discharge our duty were we to tolerate its introduction and spread over this vast extent of country which has just come into our possession free. And that if the fathers of the Republic cautiously provided against its introduction into the Ter¬ ritories then belonging to the United States, the tribute to their memories which we should pay would bapoor indeed, if we should fail to follow the example, which their wisdom and foresight dictated. Since the establishment of the Government, the Louisiana purchase, the Florida pur¬ chase, and the Texas annexation, have added five slave States to the Union, with an area of 460,000 square miles; slavery existed in all this country at the time of the acquisition, and there has only be reclaimed from it the single State of Iowa, which, in 1840, contained a popula¬ tion of less than 50,000 people. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask your attention to some statistics which I have extracted from a work of Professor Tucker, of the University of Virginia, in re¬ gard to the relative population of the free and slave States, and their relative increase, The fifteen free States contain an area of about four hundred and fifty thousand square fniles, while the fifteen slave States contain an area of more than 900,000 square miles. In 1840 the population of the United States was 17,263,353, and of this the free States contained about 10 millions, and the slave States about 7 millions. In the free States the density of population, was 22.7 to the square mile, while in the slave States, exclusive of Texas, it was only 11.7 to the square mile, and including Texas it would only be about 8 to the square mile. In thirty y^ars, from 1810 to 1840, the increase in the free States was as 100 to 258.8; in the slave States it was as 100 to 210.7. Now, Mr. Speaker, aside from the impolicy and injustice of permitting slavery to enter this new acquisition, an equitable division would seem to demand, that every inch of this new Territory should be reserved for the emigrant and the free laborer, because the area of the free States is less than one half of that of the slave States, their population is more than twice as ; dense, and their increase much more rapid. Mr. Speaker, the iron heel of oppression has been “ crushing for centuries millions of our fellow men in Europe, of our own race and color. If we were to turn a listening ear to their prayer, we should hear them cry, “save, oh, save this land for us and for our children.” One after another, as this down-trodden race escapes from the ex¬ actions of their cruel task masters, they are fleeing to this land of promise, this asylum for the oppressed, as fast as the ships of the sea can bear them. This tremendous current of immigra¬ tion naturcilly flows to the free States: during tfre.last year more than three hundred thousand arrived within ottr borders, and for the current year it is estimated that four hundred thousand will arrive in the port of New York alone; enough to fill up a State, annually , as large as Michi¬ gan and'all Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, in listening to some eloquent remarks of a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Bayly,) I understood him to^ay, “that in all the elements of prosperity aad wealth, Virginia would bear a-favorable comparison with her sister States, and that it was not considered degrading for white men to labor in Virginia.” The latter statement I consider suffi- * An act was passed on the 6th of March,* 1820, “to authorize the people of Missouri to form a State Government, and for admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, aitd to prohibit slavery in certain territories. * * 7 cientiy answered by the fact that the poor white man is denied the right of suffrage in Virginia, and that, as a qualification for holding office, a man is required to have a freehold estate, by her constitution. A reverse of fortune which should deprive the gentleman himself of his land would deprive the country of his services, for he holds his seat here by that frail tenure. In re¬ lation to the former, I have examined some statistics which I regret to say, do not bear the gen¬ tleman out in his statements. My attention has been called to a report, transmitted to this House by the Postmaster General, in answer to a resolution submitted by another gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Meade,) in relation to the transportation of the mails, and I find that, in the year 1838, the revenues from postages in that State amounted to $139,353 ; that there has- been a gradual diminution since that time ; and that, in the year 1847, the revenue was reduced to $92,272—being a falling off in nine years of $47,061! And that in Virginia, one of the old thirteen States, lying in the centre of the Republic, the expense of transporting the mails, in the - year 1837, exceeded the revenues from postages by more than $100,000! What is the reason of this great falling off of the revenue from postages? To me, Mr. Speaker, the answer is ob¬ vious—her black population are not permitted to read—her laboring whites are not intelligent. The subjoined accounts are condensed from the statement of the Auditor of the Post Office Department; by which it will be seen that, while the expense of carrying the mails in the free States was $230,233 less than in the slave States, the nett postage in the free States amounted to $925,353 more than the receipts in the slave States, or $471,123 over and above the expense of carrying the mails in the free States for one year, ending the 30th of June, 1847, being a profit of over forty-three per cent. The expense of transporting the mails during the same period, in the slave States, was $684,462 more than the. receipts in tltoue States, showing a lose to^lhe Department of nearly fifty-two per cent. If the receipts in the slave States had been in the same ratio as in the free States, the Department would have realized $570,000 over the expense of carrying the mail in slave States, malting a grand profit of $1,041,123 for carrying the mail throughout the Union: POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. Free States in account with the United States Post Office Department. Slave States in account with the United States Post Office Department. Free States. * * To cash paid for carrying the mails y one year, ending ? 30th June, 1847. By cash received with postages one o tear, ending 30th ? June, 1847. f Slave States. ■4?, | i' 1 To cash paid for carrying the mails O one year, ending 5° 30th June, 1847. By cash received with postages one o year, ending 30th r 8 June, 1847- Maine . $41,965 $59,440 Delaware $7,862 $8,789 New Hampshire - 25.560 40,680 Maryland - 133,751 81,656 Vermont - 26,563 34,338 J Virginia - 192,615 92,292 Massachusetts - 107,392 218,201 North Carolina - 172,520 31,379 Rhode Island - 9,187 26,832 South Carolina - 118,157 50,383 Connecticut - 45,797 64,157 Georgia - 153,001 55,859 New York • 229,307 494,756 Florida - 45,193 10,883 New Jersey - - 58,930 39,586, 1 Missouri 49,720 41,506 Pennsylvania J 155,412 252,17tf 1 Kentucky ♦ 89,58P 53,632 Ohio - - 170,295 158,869 Tennessee - - 55,298 37,987 Michigan - 28,212 38,491 Alabama - 136,499 49,602 Indiana • 52,439 43,348 J ) Mississippi - - 58.451 33,773 Illinois - 102,485 52,359 Arkansas - 39,996 9,569 Iowa - - 9,722 9,495 ! | Louisiana • 41,795 68,523 Wisconsin - 15,043 I. 26,703 Texas - 24,201 8,246 1,088,308 : 1,559,431 1,318,541 634,079 | 1,088,308 634,079 TCnl ir\ Bal. to Cr. free States, June 30, ’47, $471,123 | .v, V.. ~ States, June 30, ’47, $684,462 i 1 8 Mr. Speaker, in the year 1790, near sixty years ago, the State of Virginia contained a popu¬ lation of 748,308 inhabitants, or one-fifth of the whole Union. For extent of territory, fertility of soil, salubrity of climate, valuable mineral resources, breadth of seaboard, and every natural and commercial advantage, she stands unrivalled by any of her sister States. Under the appor¬ tionment of 1790, she had nineteen Representatives on this floor, while the State of New York had but ten. In the year 1820 Ne\y York had thirty-four Representatives, and Virginia 22. Under the last apportionment of 1840 New York has the same number that she had in 1820. thirty-four, while Virginia has but 15 ! The value of the exports of Virginia, thirty years ago, was $5«000,000; in 1*844 they had dwindled down to £2,000,000. In the able work of Professor Tucker, to which I have before alluded, he'says, “ that agricul¬ tural industry yields an annual value of one hundred and eighty dollars to each person employed, in New England. In the middle States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, the average yield is two hundred and seventy dollars to the hand; while in the old slave States south of the Potomac, the average yield is only one hundred and thirty dollars to the hand. In Vir¬ ginia the average is one hundred and thirty-eight dollars.” Thus it appears that, according to the best evidence the case admits of, the farmers of the middle States, with their free labor, produce more than twice as, great a value to the hand as the farmers and planters of the slave States. Slave labor, it is admitted on all hands, is best adapted to agriculture; and eve*i that noble and useful branch of industry is languishing under its in¬ fluence. • . Y ' ‘ Mr. Speaker, if the great and intelligent men of Virginia foresaw this premature and sad de¬ cline', anu ascribed it to ‘.ts'inaffeaiisc—if ule binet fruits of experience .nave proved that «