7^

Cr ZZ

.1 ..¦ „ Z". ¦ !'¦!

SPEECH

OP

HON. SAMPSON W. HAEKIS, 111
(OF ALABAMA,)

ON THE BILL

TO ORGANIZE A TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT

FOR THE

TEKEITOEY OE OREGON.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES, U, S., JULY 85, 1848.

WASHINGTON:
FEINTED BT J. & G. ?. GIDEON.
1848.

SPEECH

The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and having under
•consideration the Bill to establish the Territorial Government of Oregon —
Mr. HARRIS addressed the Committee as foUows : f
Mr. Chairman: When this bill was last before the committee, my object in
seeking the floor was to reply to the remarks which had just fallen from my
friend and colleague, (Mr. Hilliard,) relative to the purposes and conduct of
the war with Mexico. The bill proposes the enactment of that principle of re
striction which now so fearfully agitates the public mind; and which, while it
degrades the State, which has honored us alike, threatens tbe very integrity of
the Union itself. Against this measure of wrong and injustice I had hoped to
have had his co-operation. But, slighting this question of paramount dignity,
he was pleased to expend his hour in a bitter and acrimonious partisan attack
upon the Chief Executive of the Union, and the measures adopted by him in
the management of the war.
Since then our Mexican relations have changed. The blessings of peace
are once more restored to the beUigerent parties, and the successful termina
tion of the war, with aU its gratifying results, affords ample vindication of the*
wisdom, foresight, and prudence of the Administration. And, although it is
not my design minutely to foUow my coUeague through his remarks made at
that time, stiU, his reiteration of some of the charges on yesterday, and the
respect I entertain for him, wiU not permit me' to let him pass altogether un
noticed.
" To make the President the fesppnsible author of this war, which the Whig
party, with such singular unanimity, have denounced as "unconstitutional and
unjust," the' gentleman, on the occasion alluded to, charged, that "the Presi
dent, in ordering the army to a position on the Rio Grande, clearly usurped
powers not conferred on him by the Constitution." Sir, it is not denied that
the territory lyiiig on the eastern bank of the Rio Grande was in dispute be
tween the Governments of the United States and Mexico. The very relation
in which it stood to us implied, at least, a color of title, in us. Representing,
^s did the President, the whole American people, he was bound to regard that
title as perfect untU, by negotiation, the method pointed out both by the act of
annexation and the laws of nations, it was otherwise determined. Neither,
sir, is it denied, that every measure ot conciliation was attempted on the part
•of the President, and by Mexico rejected with every demonstration of, con
tumely and insult. Added to this, it is admitted, ,"tha.t there were hostile
threats and warlike demonstrations on the part of Mexico" towards this na-
^on. In the face of these admitted facts and obvious principles, I ask, does

it not savor of the very extremity of partisan prejudice to charge the President
with an act of "usurpation," when, by the very Constitution he has sworn to
support, he is bound to caU out the army and navy to "repel invasion?"
Something may be pardoned to the unreflecting prejudices which spring up'
in periods of high .party excitement; and just conclusions must not always be
counted on from plain premises. ' But justice to the character of a public man
for consistency would seem to rej[uire at his hands something like uniformity
of opinion upon the same subjects, especially when" he enters the lists as .a
public accuser. I call the attention of the committee to my colleague's opinion,
as expressed on this subject, in a speech delivered by him during the last ses
sion of the 29th Congress:
"What is the object of the present war.' The inviolability of our soH, aud the redress of
past wrongs. Whenever Mexico shall be disposed to yield these, we are bound to accept them.
Till then, we ought not to hesitate a moment, not only to hold what we have obtained, btlt .to
make, if necessary to" the attainment of these obje&tfe, stili'stronger deihonstrations."
In that speech nothiilg is said to' qualify, in any respect, the truthful and
patriotic statements thus quoted. And is it, so, that the eapteri;i bank of the
Bravo was, "oMrsoi7," when, vith hostile banners, the armies of Mexico cross
ed it in eighteen hundred find forty-six? Was it our "soil that sh6 "violated?"'
And if so, how can the gentleman, injustice either to the President or himself,
now chajcge that the President acted the part of an usurper in ordering our owii
army upon our, own soil, to protect it against the incursions of an invading foe?
But again^the gentleman charges that "When a minister was sent to nego-'
tiate (with Mexico) an army was ordered to takK possession of the' very terri
tory which was to be subject of negotiation." This accusation, Mr. Chairman,
has gone forth under the sanction of my colleague's "name, to mingle with the
thousand falsehoods and misrepresentations which the inventive genius of
Whiggery has Scattered through the land; tb form a welcome auxiliary in that
system, pf party tactics which hides from the public eye the light of history,
while it gives to efroj the coloriihg of truth; I had supposed that this old ex-
•ploded blunder equM hardly, have foiirid a patron on this floor. My colleague
should have known, that one, Uke Henry Clay, its grekt originatbr, who has
achieved a claim to infallibility, mayblund'er at pleasure; while humbler mor
tals, who "walk under the huge legs" of such a political colossus, should be
fortified with the proofs, when they;seek,to degrade a man while living, and
after death to hand over "his memory to the' records of infamy. Sir, how stands
the history of this, transaction? In the month of November, ,184^, your min
ister was despatched to, MexicOj the army then being at Corpus Christi; He
reached there, presented his credentials, and v^ras rejected in Deceniber, the
army being stiU at Corpus Christi, All this was communicated to the Presi
dent in January, 1846; and under an order given bythe President, only be-
CE^use the min;ister was rejected, the army took up its line of march for the Rio
Grande on the 12th of March thereafter; thus making a diffefence , bf four
months between the, deputatipji of the minister and the march of* the a:rtriy.
Sir, the humblest freeman who' claims the protection of your laws when ar
raigned at the bar ojF his coimtry, .has the right.to be trie'ci alone hy the fa(tS;
upon th« record. And, surely, when the highest fiinctibnary known tO ont
laws is .charged with grave political crimes, and which, if |rue, would class
him in the bloody catalogue of tyrants and mbnstgrs who have afflicted the
earth, no hppe of temporary party a,scendenGy, no ipiagined prospect of politi
cal advan^a^e, should make us unmindful of the t);uth 01* history.
And now,' sir, I leave jiiy coUeague^ as also the Presideiit— the one to, the te-
concilement of his inconsistencies and errors, the other to the enjoyment (if

that public confidence he has so richly won, and that vindication which injpar-
tial history always bestows, ioth upon the motives and the conduct of public
men. I wiU now proceed, Mr. Chairman, to the, consideration of the important
subject embraced in the biU upon your table. We are but just extricated from
the war in which, for the last two years, we have been involved. A war
which, although it has acted as a heavy drain upon our resources, both of treas
ure and of blood, has, at the same time, been fruitful in all those results which
augment the sum of a nation's power and glory. By the treaty of peace con
cluded with Mexico, more than eighteen hundred thousand square miles of ter
ritory have been added to the public domain of the United States. In addition
to this, we already own the vast territory of Oregon, for which this biU pro
poses to estabUsh a government. Thus embracing an extent of country run
ning through seventeen degrees of latitude j along the Pacific coast. This ex
tensive region, in itself an empire, has been achieved by the common enter
prise, .treasure,, and blood, of all the Union; and is, therefore, of right, the
common inheritance of every American citizen. Embracing within its range
every variety of soU and climate known to the north temperate zone, it is nat
uraUy adapted to the successful culture and production of most of those great
staples which have so augmented the power and wealth of this Confederacy ;
while, on this new theatre, the mechanic arts vviU find ample range, and invit
ing inducements for, the profitable exercise of skiU and ingenuity. This vast
tegion, thus acquired, and thus caUing to its bosom the energy and enterprise
. of oui; citizens, is to be peopled under the auspices of our Government, and
those principles of equality in which it was founded. '
The duty now devolves upon us of giving to these immense acquisitions or-
;ganic forms of government. But at the very threshhold we are met by an ob
stacle of alarming import. The Southern States of this Union have thought
proper to legalize, within tlieir limits, the institution of slavery; and the unau
thorized power is now boldly asserted by this Congress to exclude them, for
that reason, in efiect, from all participation in this common property of all the
.States. , Let us ex;amine the basis of this bold pretension :
Mr. Chairman, the fathers of the Republic, who framed our Constitution,
perhaps, because less pure or less wise than we, their sons, did not seem to
regajd slavery as incompatible with those exalted objects it was their high
purpose to achieve. Property in slaves was then an existing fact in every State
of the Union, excepting, perhaps, the^ State of Massachusetts ; who, if because
of the unprofitableness of skve labor she did not .regard the institution with
much favor, contributed her full share to the direct importation of the negro
^from the coast of Africa, to be bartered in the American market. The Coristi-
' , tution was framed with direct reference to that existing state of things ; and
bjit fo? the fact that the right to hold property in slaves had been expressly re
cognised, and the security of the title to them guarantied in the Constitution,
it would never have formed the common bond of our Union. This, sir, is
matter of solemn history : and yet, strange to say, with its full blaze of
light shining upon us, and after this Government has been administered under
the Constitution, as it is, for nearly three score yeais, it is gravely contended
that, under that Constitution, the Southern master has no right of property in
his sliave ! Sir, if this 'be true, why was slavery made, by the Constitution,
¦the basis of federal representation ? If no countenance was designed to be
^ven to slavery, why "sjas the privilege of importing slaves, for a period of
twenty years from the adoption of the Constitutipn, expressly reserved by the
..Elates? And why, during the same period of time, was GongTiBss denied, in the

Constitution, the power to pass any law to "prohibit" such importation ? Surely
it cannot be that the Constitution, thus authorizing, if nbt actually encouraging,
by its provisions, the importation of slaves into the States of the Union, intend
ed to leave them in the hands of their owners, exposed to the continual assaults
of an unauthorized majority of Congress ! But again, sir : by the 2d section
of the 4th article of the Constitution, "persons held to laborer service' in one
State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall not, in consequence
of any law or regulation 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," The word "persons," as used in the Constitution, means "slaves,"
and was inserted with express reference, to that description of persons. It
does not weaken the force of the argument to say that it equally applies to ap
prentices. Even if that be true,~the relation that subsists between master and
apprentice is based upon contract, and, in point of fact, as weU as presumption
of law, is voluntary. That between master and slave is involuntary, and thfe
idea of absolute property is netfessarily implied from the very nature of the re
lation. In this light was it regarded by the framers of the Constitution. So
that when a inaster recaptures his fugitive slave, it is not because he is merely
entitleds to his service or ¦ labor, but because he has an absolute title to his
person. . '
• But, ^gain, although it is insisted that the slave is property only by the laws
of the State in which he is held to service, it is most apparent from the very
terms of the Constitution that the title of the master is not divested by reason
of his escape into a non-slayeholding State. The fugitive slave is still proper
ty, although within the jurisdiction of a State which forbids property in slaves,
as is unanswerably established by the fact, that he "shall be delivered up on
claim" of the own ei;. Not as one bound by contract, but as a slave, whose
service is involuntary, and the rightful due of his maste;-. But, sir, to iUustrate
this practically: suppose a slave to escape from the State of Alabama, where
that species of j)roperty is recognised, into the State of Massachusetts, where
it is expressly forbidden. On the claim of the owner he is "deUvered uj),"
according to the terms of the Constitution. In what character is he Retaken ?
!^bf as a freeman. The law of Massachusetts would not permit it, if such were
the fact. Not as an apprentice, for the "clairii" "would not be founded on any
consideration based upon contract. In what other character, then_, than that
of a slave, iheprope:rty of the claimant, Would he be surrendered up ? But by
authority Of what law could the owner regain Tiis lost property ? Not by the
law'of Massachusetts, for that does not recognise property in a slave. Not by
the law of Alabama, for that ^cann'ot operate beyond her jurisdictional limits.
By what law, then, is it that this condition of property in a slave is establish-,
ed within the limits of a non-slaveholding State, and the ability of the owner
to assert that right of property recognised ?. The reply is obvious. The fun
damental law alone — the Constitution of the United States.
But let us go a step further. Canada is British soil, ^.nd par' esccellence the
nation of freedom. The moment a slave plants his feet upon her shores his
manacles fall from his limbs, and he stands forth redeemed frorh the dominion
of his master. Now, if a horse should escape from the United States into Can
ada, the owner could foUow and reclairn it. Why ? Because a horse is pro-
pert'y at cominon law, and the common' law is the law of Canada. But, if a
slave should escape from Alabama into Canada, his oWher would have no right
to retake him, and would be compelled to trust to national comity alone for his
restoration. And why ? Because, by the law of Britain no slavery can exist
•within her boWers, or in her provinces; "no slave can breathe her atmosphere
/

and live." ' But the laws of Massachusetts do just as effectually prohibit sla
very within her own Umits as do those of Canada. Then, why is it that, whUe
the owner cannot retake his fugitive slave when found in Canada^ he has the
perfect right to do so when found in Massachusetts? The plain and unanswer
able reason is, that, whUe your Constitution, and the laws passed in pursuance
thereof, cannot" by possibility extend to the one, they are paramount and su
preme in their operation over the other. How strangely absurd, then, Mr.
Chairman, must every reflecting and intelligent mind regard the position, so
pertinaciously urged here day after day, that the Constitution contains no sanc
tion for slavery, and that it is the creature of the municipal law alone of , the
State where it exists.
But, sir, the slave is regarded by the Constitution 'not merely theoreticaUy
as property, but the Government, in all its practical dealings with him, treats
him as such. He is the subject of direct taxation for aU national purposes, as
the legislative history of the Government shows. Up to as early as the year
1828, Congress, in providing for the assessment of lands, &c., and slaves for
direct taxes, had passed as many as eighteen distinct acts.* By these acts the
slave is to be assessed according to his value; and may be' proceeded against
and sold for taxes wherever he is fotmd to be the property of a delinquent.
2d Peters, L. U. S., 302. These, sir, were the acts of the Congress of the
United States, legislating under the Constitution of the United States. And,
if that Constitution did not regard the slave as property, by what authority has
Congress assumed so to declare him, and so to legislate with reference to him?
It is doubtless the case, that there are citizens of the South who now own slaves,
or the descendants of slaves, that were sold under the acts passed by Congress
for coUecting taxes, and who derive their title to them through the United States
marshaU, acting under the laws of Congress. And can it be that Congress, or
any other department of the Government, may call in question this right of
property in slaves so repeatedly recognised, and thus virtually guarantied, by
the most solemn forms of legislation.
But, again, Mr. Chairman, the Judicial department of the Government has
been equaUy explicit upon this subject. In the case of Groves et al. vs.
Slaughter, 15 Pet. R., 449, Judge Baldwin says:
" I feel bound to consider slaves as property by the laws of the United States before the' adop
tion of the Constitution, and from the first settlement of the colonies; that this right of property
exists independently of the Constitution, which does not create, but recognises and protects it
from violation by any law or regulation of any State, in the cases to which the Constitution ap
plies." Thus, sir, by a fair interpretation of the express provisions of the Constitu
tion, the practical operations of the Government under it, and the decisions of
the highest judicial tribunal in the land, the right of property in a slave is ful
ly recognised.
And now, by the bill under consideration, it is proposed to extend the Con
stitution and laws of the United States over Oregon, and a like' purpose exists
with regard to California and New Mexico. These are the common property
of all the States, each of whom have an undivided interest in the whole. The
citizens of each, having the same rights to that which is common to aU, wiU,
, therefore, in emigrating to these distant territories, go under the protecting
aegis of the Constitution, and by its solemn guarsuities, be secured in their
rights of property of every description.
* See note (o.) at page 580, 1 Peters' Laws U. S.

8
Mr. 'Sfaairiiaanj I'have already said that n^ro slavery was, .at the forma,tion
'bfljie Government, cortfttion to aU the States of the: Union. Nay, it dates its,
'^iistenee fVom the iaikes of their colonial condition, when it was forced, upon
this country 'undBr the. royal sanction of that proud and grasping monarchy to
'Which we trace our-Uneage. As slave, labor graduaUy bepame unprofitable in,,
¦the Northern States, from theacciijents of climate, and the increase of white
population, and whbn the social condition of society approximated that point
at which the wealthy and pOwerfur could bribe the necessities of the poox to
degrading and menial serVites,: the slave himselfj by natural laws, passed, to
the more congenial latitudes of the South, where his labor would be more avail
able. The Northern States passed their aboUtion laws, which Were invariably
Jitospective in their operation; the slaves 'in all cases being sold before the
feriod arrived for the. laws to take effect. Hence it was that the pbservant
and philosophical De- Tocqueville was induced to make the remark, that "al
though the Ni>rth had passed laws to abolish, slavery, no ,,aboUti9n had taken
place. " The southern freemen, trusting to the good faith of their brethren,
and the guaranties of the Constitution, became the purchasers, whUe the phi
lanthropists of the North pocketed the wages of what they now caU iniquity.
Suffice it to say, that all the slaves, thus sold and purchased, together with
their descendants, are now in the South ; that they constitute the enormous
item of nine hundred miUions of doUars in the estimate of our capital, and. are
the legitimate subjects of governmental protection in any territory which is
the common property of the Union.
In the face of aU these considerations, Mr. Chairman, which so strongly in
vite to just and moderate counsels, the intention is expressed, and therpower is
asserted on the part of this Congi'ess, to exclpde from the new territories just
acquired, the citizens of fifteen States of this Union. Ornitting all criticism
Upon the injustice of such a course, I propose to, examine the grounds upon
; ^hich the power is claimed.
In the first place, the authority of legislative precedent has be,en invoked to
justify the interference of Congress in this dangerous question. The ordinance
of 1787, and the Missouri Compromise act, and such other laws as were enacted
in furtherance of their original objects, form the basis on whicJithis argument
tests. Sir, is it necessary for me to say to this committee, containing as it does so
much legal learning, that mere legislative precedent cannot conclude a question
of constitutional power ? Judicial decisions, even, are of no avaU, jvhere they
do not comport with the great principles of justice, and the spirit of the laws
tin which they ^xe founded,. Surely, then, a legislative act can have no greater
Weight, and loses all its force when adopted without authority. A legislator,
'«*forn to support the Constitution, must ever refer to the aiithority under
which he acts for the measure of his power, and not to the questionable con
duct of his predecessors. , The one denotes ythe path of safety; the' other is
almost certain to mislead.
What, then, is the force of the ordinance of 1Y87, and how far can it justify
the'exercise of the power how; claimed ? Sir, the Government, under' the Ar-
tides'of Confederation, like that under which we now live, was one of liniited
-powers ; and in vain do you search it for the authority to pass the ordinance.
If you look to the deed by which Virginia ceded the Northwestern Territory to
tlie United States, your search is equally futile. On the contrary, it is ex-
jaressly stipulated in that deed that the States to be formed out of it were to
be admitted into the Union With ^" equal rights, privileges, and immunities,"
with the other States of the Uriioh. Sir, every^ Stat6, then, in the Union,

Massachusetts alone exscepted, recognised within its iimits the institution of
.slavery, and aU claimed the "right and privilege" of doing so. Then, whe
ther we look to the Articles of Confederation, or to the Virginia grant, the
fpower exercised was wanting; and this famous ordinance, now appealed to as
-authority, was in equal derogation of both. The utter absence of aU power to
pass it is made clearly manifest from the further fact, that notwithstanding its
.purpose was to exclude slavery forenerr from all that territory, it stands to-day
«pon the statute book a dead letter, which each one of the thriving States it
was intended to restrict, may trample upon with perfect impunity. The philan
thropic State of Connecticut permitted slavery within her Umits up to "within the
last two years, and may at her option legalize it again. 'And surely it wiUnot be
pretended that, under the equal principles of our Constitution, she can exert any
.power, or exercise any privilege, which does not equaUy belong to the sovereign
State of IlUnois. Sir,, every aspect in which this case is. presented, establishes
the truth of what Mr. Madison declared in reference to it, that " it was passed
without any color ofconstitutional authority."
But admit that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress did have the
power asserted over the territory then belonging to the United States; surely
fthat cannot be invoked as a precedent to govern us, who legislate for other
and different territory, acquired under a new and different constitution, which
confers upon us no such authority. It would not savor of greater absurdity to
appeal to the legislation of the British Parliament to justify tiiis threatened vio-
'lation of the Constitution, than to that under the Governmenti of the Cohfede-
--ration, which is long since defunct.
But, sir, is the Missouri act less exceptionable, when urged as evidence that
this alarming power over the territories exists? The mere exercise of a given
power by Congress can in no case be adduced to prove that the power is con-
-fetrred by the Constitution. You must not look to the act itSefr, but to the
Constitution, tb determine this question. If, on the contrary, the powers of
Congress may be deduced-from its own action, it has only to usurp every power
forbidden by the Constitution and reserved to the States, to drstw within the
¦vortex of its authority evi^rysubject known to Federal or State legislation.
"Sir, the assumption here set up over this fearful question, and the process of
"reasoning adopted to sustain it, must fix the conviction on every thinking mind
of the dangerous proclivity to centralization which has marked the history of
the legislative, more than any other branch of this Government, from its very
.foundation. TeU me not of the dangers of the "one-man power!" Much
more do I tremble before that irresponsible, pligarchioal spirit, which, strug
gUng into being under the specious pretext of carrying out the popular wiU,
would strike frorn our system its most conservative feature — the veto poWer —
and make of the President an automaton and a tool. :Because Congress has
legislated upon this subject, therefore Congress has the right to legislate upon
it! This, sir, is the mode resorted to "to establish the existence of this power,
"without ever referring to the Constitution, which contains the only evidence
of your power to act at aU, or even of your right to Occupy these seats. If -we
'have not- the original power to legislate upon this siibject, the right to "do so
cannot be inferred from the unauthorized assumption of it by our predee€SsOrs.
'As'WeU might the robber attempt to justify his crimes, upon the plea that
Others had robbed before him. EVery reason which restrains us now, mu'st
'have borne with equal fotce upon preceding Congresses. And if they, in the
"passage of any law, trampled the Constitution under foot, that man itiUst haVe
a' Wdst pliant consei«nce, who can take shelter under a bad exdittple to'viblirte
^his'oath to support and defend it. It is but an aggravation of error to^mStke

10
one aggression theexcuse for another^ and no legislative act can be entitled to
a moment's thought, which is not entrenched by the guaranties of constitu
tional authority. ,
Whatever of weight may be awarded to the Missouri Compromise act, by
those who rely upon it as an evidence of congressional power, it is only neces
sary to state, that it passed against the voice and wish of the South, and under
its most solemn protest. The question of power has ntever been conceded. It
was denied then, it is denied now. It is true, the South acquiesced in it,
although it circumscribed her just rights uhder the Confederacy. But impute
it not to her want of self-respect, or a just appreciation of what she was enti
tled to; nor yet infer from it, sir, that she wiU submit to every extremity of
injustice! But rather regard it as a pregnant evidence of her devotion to that
Union, which she cherishes with the hereditary attachment of those who
cemented it with their blood; for whose altar she is ever ready with a victim,
when the sacrifice is needed; to which she still clings with unabated devotion,
and from which she cannot be seduced or driven, until the brand is raised to
impress upon her fearless brow a mark she never yet has borne, and which, j
by the blessing of God, she never wiU bear— the mark of dishonor. '
But, sir, did Congress have the power to pass the restrictive law of 1820,
which is now appealed to, to justify further encroachments by the present
Congress? They, as weU as we, 'legislated -under the present Constitution, and
- the question of their power is therefore settled by an examination into our own.
The first section of the 1st article of the Constitution declares that "AU
legislative powers herein granted shaU be vested in a Congress of the United
States," &c. The tenth article of the amendments to the Constitution declares
that — ' '
" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitutipn, nor prohibited by it tO'
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Here we haye a chart to guide us, which, no honest mind can fail to under
stand. Is this legislative power then granted in the Constitution ? In looking
through this instrument, it wiU be found that the only clause, which in the re
motest degree relates to the power of Congress over the territory of the United
States, is contained in the 2nd section of the 4th article, which declares that-^ '
" The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful*ules and regulations
respecting the territory, or other property, belonging to the United States."
It is from this power to make " rules and regulations," that the right is
claimed to legislate ad libitum for the territories, and of course to exclude sla
very therefrom'. If any doubt could possibly exist as to the proper interpre
tation of this clause, or of the extent of the power it confers, that doubt is fuUy
removed by the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of the United
States Ds. Gratiot et al., 14 Peters. The Court says—
"The term territory as here used, is merely descriptive pf one kind of property, and is
^equivalent to the word ' lands. ' "
So that without violating the sense of the clause, or restricting the power con
ferred by it, the one word may be substituted for the other. The clause would
then read : " that Congress shaU have power to dispose of, and make aU need
ful, rules and regulations respecting the lands, Sfc.,he}ojiging to the United
. States. " The power then claimed from this clause is, that of excluding slavery
from the " lands" " which belong to the United States." Now, sir, it cannot
-be denied, that whatever maybe the. nature and extent of the power granted
by this clause, it must be uniform and universal in its application to aU "Imij^

11
belonging to the United States," without reference to their location, whether
within or without the Umits of a sovereign State. , As much as ten miUions of
acres of "lands belonging to the United States" now lie within the limits of
the State of Alabama; as much more in the States of Mississipjii and Arkansas.
And, under this clause of the Constitution, Congress has always exercised its
right " to dispose of and make aU needful rules and regulations respecting it."
It has "regulated" the time and manner of survey ; the number of acres to-
be contained in a section ; what quantities should be reserved for particular pur
poses ; the manner of sale ; the price ; the description of funds to be received
in payment, and the terms of payment ; the number and location of land offi
ces ; the number and compensation of land agents; in fine, every " rule and
regulation needful to a proper disposition of the territory belonging to the United
States," has Congress always exercised wherever it was situated. It still has
that power ; and to-morrow^ may, if deemed " needful," change or modify ex
isting rules and regulations relative to this territory, without reference to its
^location. Now, sir, slavery exists by jaw in all the States before mentioned.
And if the clause enabUng Congress to " make rules and regulations respecting
the territory" in Oregon, CaUfornia, and New Mexico, carries with it the fur
ther power to exclude slavery therefrom, the same power must exist relative tO'
the " territory" in the several States ; for the right to make " rules and regu
lations" is, in each case, derived from the same grant, and no distinction is
made between the power of Congress over " territory" in a State, and "terri
tory" not in a State. But it is not pretended that Congress has any control
oyer slavery in a State. If, then, the power to exclude it in the one case does
not exist, neither can it be exercised in the other. It is no answer to say that
a State has exclusive control over the subject by virtue of her sovereignty.
For if Congress has the power claimed, the State does not have the sovereign
right to control the subject. -Because, if as it is insisted this power is con
ferred upon Congress by the Constitution, it is one of the powers "prohibited""
to the States; and, therefoire, nothing in the constitutions or laws of the States
could be of paramount authority, which would be incoihpatible with its fuUest
exercise on the part of Congress. The argument which seeks to prove the
power of Congress over slavery in the territories from this clause, to be con
sistent, should establish the Uke power over the same subject in the States.
But this would prove what all deny; and, therefore, is the absurdity of this
wicked pretension made manifest to all.
The views which I have presented on this branch of the argument, Mr..
Chairman, seem to my mmd to be conclusive. I may, however, be in error;,
and if so,»I would respectfuUy invite the Hon. Chairman of the Committee on
Territories, (Mr. Caleb Smith,) to expose its faUacy when he shall have taken
the floor upon this bUl. '
Sir, amid the variety of vieWs put forth to justify this monstrous assumption
of power, nothing has so much astonished me as that presented by the suc
cessor of the late Mr. Adams on this floor, (Mr. Horace Mann.) That gen
tleman asserts that the territory "belongs to Cpngress;" and therefore, in dis
posing of it. Congress would have as fuU a right to clog it with conditions as he
himself would have in disposing of his own land. Belong to Congress! Where
is the title deed? What is the consideration paid for it, and Whence derived?
Have the people no interest in this vast domain? Or is- it true that we, who
are but the agents of our several constituencies, comnpissioned to protect, not
to destroy their rights, have, by the mere accident of our present positions,
'' become the sole masters of this princely inheritance? If so, we have but to-
divide it among ourselves; and we shaU have thus achieVed the great object of

13
.^giving repose tp the country, while at the same time we shaU make ourselves
.quite comfortable for life. Belong to Congress! "Where, sir, does the gentle
man find a warrant for so extraordinary a claim? If this opinion be frankly ex
pressed,, and may b^ regarded as a fair specimen of his political knowledge, the
merest tyro may instruct him. Sir,, if the Territories,"belong to Congress,"
why shpuld the Constitution assume to declare that "Congress way dispose of"
thatTivhich is its own! "JWa'y make rules and regulations" for its oww freehold!
And why audaciously declare that this p-opepti) of Congress ^.ctually "belongs
to the United States?" Mr. Chairman, it is npt surprising that one who enter-
.tains such crude and ill-digested opinions upon the very elementary principles
lof the Government under which he lives,- should so widely mistake the ntbral,
social, and intellectual character of the South, or be so ready to adopt the!slan-
-^ders which ignoiance or fanaticism denounce against her. I would respect-
.fuUy commend him to a more diligent study of both.
But, sir, the right to exclude slavery from the Territories is claimed upon
-another ground. It is said that the right to govern is a necessary incident to
the power to acquire territory. This is true, but not to the unlimited extent
.claimed upon this floor. Every Government in the exercise of this prerogative,
jnust be necessarily regulated by the peculiar na,ture of its own institutions.
That Government whose powers are limited alone by the uncontroUed wiU of
an irresponsible despot, may dictate the law, however onerous, for a con
quered province. But every acquisition made by us must be made in our
character of a definite Government; and, as that Government exists only by
virtue of the Constitution, which is at once the evidence as well as the measure
«of its authority, it can exert no power over acquired territory inconsistent with
the spirit of that instrument. The opposite theory involves, the preppsterous
idea of a government outside of the Constitution, with the power "to establish a
leligion," to "suspend the habeas corpus," and "grant titles of nobiUty" within
¦a Territory of thev United States; while within the States no such power :exists.
_And such, sir, was the conclusion to which the argument of thegentleman from
Indiaiia' (Mr. Pettit) led him. A system thus anomalous, both limited and un
limited, would be without precedent in the history of Governments, and totaUy
at variance with the character of our own. So, the , moment territory is ac
quired by us, our fundamental law necessary supervenes, and the conflicting
law of the conquered country ceases to operate. That fundamental law, the
Constitution of the United States, Wherever it is extended, whether in the
States or in the Territories, recognises the rightfulness of slavery, though it
'seeks not to enforce it. The establishment of it, or not, within the separate
sovereignties, is left to them alone. But, wherever it is established, it is , the
jsubject of the fundamental as well as local law. Being thus recognised by the
fundamental law as a species of property, which may or not exist,, accbrding to
the_ wiU of those who have the right to determine the question, it must neces-
^sarily exist of right, in every State or Territory, tiU^the competent power to
jprevent it shaU so determine. Each State may settle this question for itself;
but, as each has but a jurisdiction limited by its own boundaries, they cannot,
, acting through their local authorities, determine a question in which aU are
jointly interested. The States as a body cannot settle it, except in that way
pointed out in the Constitution — by meeting in convention to change the Con
stitution. Then, sir, can the Government as it. exists do it? The Government
is but the agent of aU the States,, acting under a grant of limited and weU-
defined, powers, which -'confers upon it no such authority; apd the exercise of
any such power on its part, would be a oalpable violation of every principle of
ihe Constitution.

13
, 'Mi. Chairman, the power which the inhabitants of the Territories may exer
cise over the question of slavery, has been a prominent feature of ¦ discussion,
during thy debate. My purpose has been to address myself to- the practical
question before us-^the power of Congress over the subject. My opinions are,
nevertheless, fully made up. It cannot be, sir, that the mere settiers in a
ten-itory, the joint property of the several States of this Union, have the right-
to dictate the 'terms' on Which their twenty miUions of citizens^ may take pos
session of their common inheritance. It cannot be, that those who have fallen
before the superior prowess of the American volunteer, may prescribe the lavw
' of his residence among them! The inhabitants of the Territories are there by;
the mere permission of the States-; theyare destitute of aU those attributes
which constitute them a people, in a poUtical sense. Ap the bill upon your
table shows, they look to Congress for the right to govern themselves,, and re-.
ceive at our hands their organic law. Upon their every act of legislation Con
gress reserves its right of veto. And it cannot pe, that a community, whose
every poUtical power is derived from Congress, may exercise any authority
over this subject, upon which Congress itself is incompetent to legislate. But
.when these remote Territories, the subjects of our paternal supervision and
care, have passed their period of dependence upon the Government, and
emerged from their chrysaUs state into the full blown attributes of sovereignty,
then, and not untUthen, wiU a power be found adequate to the settlement of
this much controverted question.
Mr. Chairman, the ai-gument based upon the immorality of slavery can hard
ly avail in the discussion of this question of power. We have no right to set
up ourselves as censores morwm. We are sworn legislators, acting under a
written constitution. If there is sin in slavery, be the consequences upon, us
and our children!' We ask none of that commiseration so gratuitously ten
dered. Give us our rights, and we wiU spare your teaTs. Streaming from any
other eyes, we might regard them with respect; but we are -not strangers to the
history of the past; we have not forgotten that they who now upbraid us with
the sin of slavery^ and piously thank God that they are "not as other men"-:-^
slave-dealers, slaverstealers, or even as these Southerners — were the first to im-'
port the slave, the first to sell the slave, and pocket what they- now call the-
price of iniquity.- Let them not forget'that the poor publican, who "smote up
on his breast" and confessed himself a sinner,. found more favor in the sight of
Him who scans the motives of men, than did the proud Pharisee with aU his
affected sanctity. I choose, sir, to take my moral lessons on this subject from
another and higher source. History informs us that when the Messiah came
upon the earth, slavery, in aU its most cruel and revolting forms, existed
throughout the Roman empire; in Judea, as elsewhere. And yet He, whose
mission upon earth it was, to "reprove the world of sin, 9f righteousness, and
of a judgment to come," who condemned iniquity in its minutest forms, instead
of preaching up this modern philanthropy, enjoined the observance of all the
duties which belong to the relation of master and servant. "ShaU mortal man
be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?"
And now, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would ask, is this threatened in
justice to be consummated upon the South? These Territories are the price of
blood, streaming from every portion of the Union. The blended chivalry of
every State ofthe Union has won this rich domain. On every battie-field in
Mexico, the hardy son of the North, and the fearless volunteer of the South,
have together upheld the flag and honor of their country. Side by side have
they languished in the hospital. In a common current has their life blood
mingled, and the tears which a nation of mourners sheds upon the grave of the

14
one, run over to moisten and haUow the kindred dust of the other, And now
that the din of battie is hushed, and the spoils of victory are gathered to our
camp, is it to be said, that he who was foremost in the fig:ht and the last in the
retreat, has no interest in the fruits of the common achievement? Shall the
Northern traitor, who imprecated the judgments of Heaven upon the armies of
•feis country, be told "to enter in and enjoy," while the Southern patriot shaU
be forbidden to pour out his sweat upon the very- fields he has already watered
with his blood? ShaU the North have everything, the South nothing? Sir, let
those who persist in this career of madness and injustice weigh well the re
sponsibiUties they assume. Let them not disregard the compromises of the
Constitution, nor stretch to a dangerous tension the chords which unite us.
Let them remember that the sense of national injustice and national degrada
tion is never appeased; that the wrongs already threatened have weakened, in
many a patriotic bosom, the sentiment of attachment to the Union of the States.
Men now use familiar words which twenty years ago would have been deemed
as treasonable. This HaU, consecrated to the purposes of eternal justice, is
made the theatre of perpetual crimination and recrimination. Suspicion has,
faken the place of confidence. The spirit of fraternity and equality has fled, and
the gorgon train, of iU-weaved ambition, sectional jealousy, and the insatiate lust
of unlawful power, hold their accursed orgies over the violated Constitution. The
cloud, which but yesterday was "no bigger than a man's hand," which excited no
alarm, to-day has spread over the whole Heavens, and its dark shadow is upon
us. Beyond the walls of this Capitol, men maddened by disappointment, and
thirsting for vengeanae; forgetting the favors of the past, rioting in the dissen
sions of the present, and looking only to the ruin of the future; false to princi
ple, false to self, and false to country, are madly attempting to array, thetwo
extremities of this Union in fierce hostility to each other on this fearful ques
tion. Sir, let the patriptism, wisdom, and moderation of Cpngress come to the
rescue of the Union; let it by settling it, and that forever, withdraw from the
strife of the Presidential canvass this fearful element of discord, which,
though now manageable, may hereafter return upon us defying aU control.
Let us take from the wreckless schismatic, and the unprincipled factionist, this
-question of slavery, the only aUment on which they feed, and restore tranquil
lity to the public mind by another triumph of the Constitution.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08937 3824

' , V

I'll ,1

^ til

-u^'-V,

-V' ;,,
¦f'\*H ' mAlj.)" . i-mi -*'t''
V JBw''Tv;^ '''.n^
-"t BiiwK*SR,-H r«
"I IK
^f \r J ' %"
't, • /:"¦
^
t
, .^
• 'f