Vy RESTRICTION IN CONFIilCT l^^ITH JUDICIAIi AUTHORITY. 11 OF NORTH CAROLIJSTA. DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF R]<: PRESENT ATI VES, MAY 2, 1860. Tiie Jlouse being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union— Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina, said : Mr. Chairman: In the year 1S50 we had gathering over our heads a storm not less portentous than that which now threat.ens the peace of the country. When Millard FiUmore, who had uot the confidence of a considerable number of the ex- treme southern States, entered upon the presidential office he encountered obstacles of no ordinary difficulty to overcome. By the aid of patriotic men of all sections of the country, and of all political parties, the pending troublesome questions were arranged. California came into the Union. The slave traffic in the District of Co- lumbia was prohibited. The controversy with Texas was adjusted, and Utah and New Mexico organized upon plans which promised to secure the permanent peace and repose of the country upon questions of a sectional nature. Although the vote upon these various propositions indicate no entire concurrence with regard to them all, yet, as a series of measures constituting a compromise, this country, from one end of it to the other, accepted them, and both political parties which met next after their adoption — that noble partj^ sir, with which I have always claimed the honor to belong, and the Democratic party — declared, in the most solemn form to the country, t'.eir purpose to abide by the measures which constitute the legislation of 1850. More than that. He whose name is never mentioned without awakening recollections of a patriotism worthy the better days of the Republic, Henry Clay, and other brave men, signed a solemn proclamation to the country, in which they made known their unalterable purpose to sustain for no legislative office. State or Federal, any man who was disposed to disturb and uproot the compromise which had been niade, and upon which depended the public repose. Millard Fillmore's administration was the only Whig Administration that this country has seen; and when he retired from the public servicehe carried with him the meed of his country's approval: "Well done, good and faithful servant." His administration had been firm, yet moderate, and when his sun set, it set full-orbed, as it was in its meridian splendor, without a spot upon its disk, or any diminutioa of its brightness. Another party succeeded to the possession of power. The last of its two terms of office ifl drawing to a close, and now upon its retirement, the same portentous future which in 1850 inspired apprehensions of impending disaster, opens to view, and flings its dark shadows over the political landscape. Reeentevents have crea- ted an intensity of excitement in the popular mind, scarcely finding its parallel in our history; and discord, jealousy, and a feeling of distrust and insincerity prevail throughout the laud. •Upon the floor of this Hall we have heard uttered by extreme men of both politi- cal parties, off'ensive and irritating language, crimination and recrimination — mena- ces of defiance and violence, indicating the depth and extent of an agitation without which now rocks the Union itself to its very centre. Well may the heart of the patriot quail, when he remembers that at such a crisis the great men who assisted in com- posing our former sectional strifes, of whom Massachusetts claims one, Kentucky the other, and the nation both, are not living to bring to our deliberations their pacific counsels and their healing measures. Mr. Chairman, we must look at the facts as they are. Instead of the language of violence and menace, which has been too often indulged in upon this floor, we ought, and do, according to the theory of our Government, meet here for the purpose of friendly consultation, and with the view of striking out some measures of general usefulness that shall redound to the honor, the well-being, and the prosperity of this great country, which we all proudly claim to be our jiome. Now, what are the existing subjects of controversy? Gentlemen on my light charge that the South has been the aggressive party almost from the very origin of our Government down to this hour ; and one geutleu^ian has even brought forward, in the form of a specific / 2 accusation, a series of cliarges, in which we are made to do violence and wrong to the section of tlie country which he represents. WJiy is it that we have no peace ? Y/hy is it that these disturbing elements are still in our midst? But, Mr. Chairman, I prefer to go back, for one or two moments, to the origin of our Government, to its earliest history, to notice and repel a charge which has been heralded from one end of this land to the other, that the spiiit of the Constitution under which we live is hostile to the existence of domestic slavery, and will ulti- mately subvert and destroy it. To sustain this assertion reference is constantly made to our early action imder the Constitution, when the Qovernment was admin- istered by the hands of those who framed that Constitution, and especially to the ordinance of 1787, which forbids slavery throughout the tei'i'itory acquired from Vii'ginia. It is true, as has been rejieatedly stated in this discussion, that A^irginia ceded a magnificent empire on the northwest of the Ohio with a knowledge that Con- gress had passed an ordinance forever excluding slavery from any portion of it. But, in this connection, it must not be forgotten that Virginia, also, by an act passed in December, 1780, consented to the foi-niation of the State of Kentucky within her lim- its, and Kentuck\', as a slaveholding State, was admitted into the Union in June, 1792. North Carolina, by deed in February, 1790, executed under an act other General Assembly of December preceding, ceded to the Federal Government that rich terri- tory now represented by the ten members tVom Teimessee; and in securing the bene- fits of the ordinance of 1787, in the fourth section of the act, expressly provides, "that no regulations made, oi- to be made by Congress, shall tend to emancipate slaves." And Georgia, which in 1802 ceded all lier territory west to the Mississipjn river, required of Congress, in the treaty which she and the Federal commissioners entered into for its transfer, that the provisions of the same ordinance, in all its parts, should be f^xtended to th^ ceded territory, "that article only excepted which forbids slavery." Now, do not these facts show, that, in the early history of our Goveriunent, and when its boundaries were expanding, it was no well-founded objection to the ac(jui- pition of territory, and the formation of future States tlierefrom to 'be brought into the Union, that slavery would be permanently established there? Aiul although it was excluded from the whole Northwest, it is planted ineradicably upon the soil of that entire region which stretches westward from the Atlantic slaveholding States towards the IMississippi. "When the nation has accepted these cessions, and upon these terms, why is it that at this late day it is urged in argument that whatever may have been the individual opinions of the statesmen of the aire to which I have referri:;d the policy of tlie Government at that lime was hostile to the existence of slavery, and intended, so far as its powers could he exercised, to prohibit it and curtail its extension? Again, in ISO.", we acquired that territory lying west of ihe llississij>pi river, known as the Louisiana j)urchase, and entered into a distinct and solemn covenant with the first Napoleon that the inliabitants of the ceded tenitory should be, as soon as practicable, according to the piinciples of the Federal Constitutii>n, admit- ted into tlie Union, "wilh all (he li hts, adviuitages, and inununities of cili/.ens of the United States, ami in the meantime should be maintnhi'd and protected inth e free enjoyment of //leir libertii, -propcrtji, and the relui'iou w/iick t/ie>/ profesn." And when later in 1819, we obtained possession of Florida from Spain, it was ac- quired as slaveholding territory — held as such during its territorial existence, and so tdtimately was received into the Union. Do not these facts and this brief review denmnstrate that if the policy of the early fathers of the Republic contemplated the spread of free institutions w'estvard of the free States, it e([uaily contemplated the extension of slave institutions wirst- ward of the slave States, in the progress onward to the bari'ier of t!ie I'acitic ocean? And while this was their policy, it was almost identically the ]>olic\' of those who adopted the Missouri compTomise of 1S2U — that of providing for the fornuition of free States westward to the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific, leaving to the settlers south of that line all the rights to which they were entitled in the absence of any ])rohil)itory or adverse legislation. The history of our earliest legislation in regard to territorial ac(piisitions discloses the fact that they conlenqdated and intended to cai'ry out, even down t<> ]S2n, that ])olicy of a fair anil just division of the common ter- ritory west of the Mississippi between tJie two sections that nnike the Federal Union. The honorable gentlenum from Ohio, (Mr. Tompkins,) and others with hini, have declared the Missouri compromise to be itself an aggression upon the lights of the Jioi-thern Stales, and, with some show of inconsistency, its repeal another aggression upon the same rights. An aggression, to extend a ))rohibitory act to all tiic Terri- tories which lie north of 80° 8o', and to leave the others subject to all the contin- gencies which attend the formation and establishment of infant political communi- ties! And this is all that was done by tliose who adopted the measures of 1820. Slavery is prohibited north of 36° 30', without any declaration as to the condition "■-of the territory lying south-ward of that line. Well, sir, who were the parties to ■rmake the compromise line? A recurrence to that portion of our history will show ~" that at that time a raoi'e dangerous jjroposition — one now scarcely advanced hy any \ politician — was asserted and attempted to he ingrafted into our policy ; and that was, the insertion into the fundamental act for the admission of new States a permanent ";; ^disability to establisli the institution of slavery there, although there we stood face "to face with the most solemn covenant, by which we had pledged the faith of this na- s'tion to the French Government to give to Missouri and every other part of that ter- \^ritory which we acquired all the rights which appertain to any other State when they come into the Federal Union. There was a proposition to restrict and hamper her, to introduce Missouri into the Union subjected to disabilities which do not at- tach to any other Slate of the Confederacy. The history of tliese proceedings shows "that the South was not disposed to accept that or any prohibitory legislation ; and if gentlemen will examine the record of the various votes which were given while thai; measure was under consideration, and during the session of Congress at which it was nltimatelj' adopted, they will find that t\vo diverse propositions to restrict slavery were pressed bj- the Senate and House respectively; that in the House being a peremptory — present and prospec- tive — prohibition of slavery within the limits of the State of Missouri; and the counter proposition in the Senate, ultimately adopted and constituting the prohibi- tory section of the Missouri compromise, asit is now so well known to the country. Comint,' from a northern Senator, offered to the South by the IS'^orth, that ultimately was adopted bv a vote which tlie .Journals show consists ot a larger proportion of noitliern than of southern members. While it is true that northern Representatives preferred and pressed their amend- ment excluding slavery from the incoming State, yet when they found the Senate unyielding in its opposition, they receded, and adopted the restriction in its present form by a vote of 134 ayes against 42 noes. In this aflirmative vote there were 95 northern members and 39 southern; while the negative consisted of 5 northern and 37 southern members. So that while the vote of southern Representatives stands nearly equally divided, that of northern is as 95 to 5. Has the South ever faltered in her efforts"to maintain and defend this fair and equitable proposition, by which we are to take this common property and divide it between us? I propose to refer to a few occasions when the subject came up in the two Houses of Congress, with a view of showing that almost uniformly southern members were for extending the Missouri compromise to the Pacitio, making it a final settlement of the whole ques- tion of dom.estic slavery between the different parts of the Union. While on the other hMud, with almost equal unanimity, the North insisted on the total exclusion of slaveholders from all of the newly acquired territory and its appropriation to themselves. On the 8th of February, 1847, Mr. Wihnot moved an amendment to the three mil- lion bill, which was then in consideration in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, in the following language: " And he it farther ennrted. That tliere shall be neither slavery or involuntary servitude in any territory in the continent of America which shall herealter be acquired by, or annexed to, the Uni- tf-d States, except for crimes whereof the party sliall have been duly convicted : Provided dhoays, That anv person escaping into such territory fi-om whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the United States, such fueitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed out of said territory to the persons claiming liis or her labor or service." This proposition was adopted in the House by the following vote: Ayes— Northern votes 11,5 I Noes— Northern votes 15 Southern votes (from State of Del.). . 1 | Southern votes t,.^" ^^ Total ^ 110 I Total 106 The Senate having passed a bill without any provision of that kind, it came into the House, and the same amendment was moved to it, with the following result: Ayes— Northern votes Ofl I Noes— Northern votes 21 Southern voles 1 I Soulheru votes °1 Total 971 Total 103 This, then, was the manifestation of public opinion as far as it could be ascer- tained from the action of members of the House, on the broad proposition to ex- clude slavery from all territory that we might thereafter acquire by that war or by purchase. In the Senate an amendment was moved to the Oregon bill, on the 10th of August, 1848, by Judge Douglas, as follows: "That the line of 36 deg 80 min. of north latitude, known as the Missouri compromise line, as defined by the eight section of an act entitled ' An act to authorize the people of the Missouri Terri- lory to form a constitution and Slate fjovernmenl. and for the admission ofsnch State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States) and to prohibit slavery iadiertain Territbriesj' approved March 6,1 S20, be, and the same is hereby, declared to extend to the Pacific ocean; and the said eijihih section, together with the compromise therein efTeeted. is hereby revived and declared to he in full force and binding for the future organization of the Territories of the United States in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted." On that proposition, the votes in the Senate were — ^lEs— Northern Senators 7 1 Noes— Korthern Senators 21 Southern Senators 2G 1 Southern Senators Total »3 I Total 21 In the House of Representatives, August 11, 1848, on the same amendment, the vote stood — AvES— Northern members 4 1 Noes— Northern members 120 Southern members 7S | Southern members 1 Total 821 Total 121 Tn the Senate, on August 12, 1848, on receding from the amendment which the House refused to adopt, the vote stood — Ayes— Northern Senalors 27 I NoES^Northern Senators - Soutlieru Senators 2| Southeni Senators 25 Total 29 I Total 25 Again, in 1850, when the California bill was pending before Congress, tlie vote in the Senate on the same amendment, whieh Judge Douglas had moved in regard to Oregon, was — Ayes— Northern Senators 1 Noes— Northern Senators 29 Southern Senators 2-1 | Southern Senators 3 Total 24I Total 32 Again, on June 5, 1850, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, moved an amendment to the compro- mise bill, in the following words: " That nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing or permitting the introduction of slavery or the holding of persons as property within said Territory." On that vote there were — Ayes— Northern Senators .*. 24 1 Noes- Northern Senators 5 Southern Senators l| Southern Senators 25 Total 25 I Total SO Mr. Seward moved a restriction, in the following words: " Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than upon conviction fur crimes, shall ever be allowed in either of said Territories of Utah and New Mexico." On that vote there were — ^YES—Northern Senators 23 1 Noes— Northern Senators 6 Southern Senators | , Southern Senators 27 Total 23 I Total 83 I might go over many more votes than those to which I have referred, but I am aware of the tedious nature of details like these, and will not trouble the commit- tee with any farther rehearsals of them. I have referred to them for the pur]iose of showing that, on the ]nvrt of the South, we have ever offered the olive binneh of peace; and we offer it here even to-day. It has alwaj's been the juirpose and aim of southern men, without regard to party distinctions, to run out and extend to tlie Pacific ocean that compromise which was embalmed in the art'ectiid growth of a great sectional tiarty, which now confronts us in this House and tliroughout the entire Korth. But, nevertheless, the necessity was almost forced on the country by the I'efusal to adopt any system of cipiitable partition of the Territorj^ recently obtained, which we owned in common, west ot tlie Mississippi. Jsorthern gentlemen said to us: "Slavery does not exist there, and we will never consent that any part of that ter- ritory shall be pressed by the foot of a slave." "We of the South said: "You are unwilling to divide it; then let us fall back on our respective constitulior.nl rJLrhts, and let t hose to whom belongs the great dnty of deciding rjuestions of eouslitutionul law settle this controversy between us." Sir, that was the condiiion of things after 1854. The line of partition was oblit- erated, and the .hole public domain -f^^J^^S.:^^^:^:r^L SJ^ur^ ingress and settlement of cifzens from all ^^^f fZ/^'^^^'H 'stion of constitutional ties of the Constitution alone. The 'f "^.^'^^ , ^'^''^™^';,/„f t^e Federal Judiciary, law and of equal rights, appropriate for the '>»"<^-'^7,,^*. ^^^^'^.^JJ -^^^ remidiatlng its authority as they are presented in the record. 1 ns "'"g"™!" '^ "^ J'^S JestLted view of s upon a'misapprehenMoo, and mvohy^s a ven nai ow a ^^^ rests upon a misapprehension, and I'l^^.'^.^^'^^'^'-VoV; entire record was before the the functions of a court of supreme .l""sdiction f ^^^^^f fj^^^^,*^ ,,a presenting court for its review, containing a statement of ^"^fj^^^l^l VnVh the validity of the for its consideration and decision those egal ^f ^^'°",'^ "l^"' V m,n upon the whole final judgment depends. It was called "l->^^ " [f ■Jji^,;?,, ^^ f 't1 eTe'tion of the record, and it rendered, what, m its opinion, was the i 'S'^" '^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^s itself di- validitv under the Constitution of the Missouri c^^^''^. ^/^^^fw^rt Jce areued- xectlv presented to the court in the facts of the case. ^^ f^^^^f^i^'^^, ^ij^red bv the argued with ability and talent of the highest ^^"^^ -^l'^^^^^^^^^ that'finds court; and the final judgment \""«""f 'i.^^'^" '^'^^ ' ' ^''^V ^^^^ ^'^''^* no su,;erior for learning, research, and logic, in the ^"fl; f ^"J^l^'^J^f j^.^tice, who was the conclusion at which the court arrived? ^J^ ^^hi.^t^e Ch^^^ delivers the opinion of the court, after ^^'^^''^f,* \^^Ve no dil ^S o^betwe^ that right of property of the master in a slave, and ^ ^f^ "f,.^';;!'''^^ that "theriuht description of property and ot^'^^' P'-«f ^^^ ^^'"^'tS.n'd iifthe Con titution and of property in a slave is disti^nctly f "^^expressly afh™ ni the Consm ,^^^^^ announces the result of his reasoning m these words : "rpontheseconsiderations.it is the opinion of tbe -"^ that U.e a of ^^^^^^^^ ^A!^]!^^^^S^^:i^^ -;?;S.?1U^ C^ililu^n, and^is there.re void." That is the opinion of the court as P-nounced by the C^ief^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ attention of the committee to the evidence, which I find m the 1 ^^^^^_ Wayne, as to the extent the opinion was concurred in by the memoeis "Two of thejud.es, Mr. Justices McLean and Curtis, f^^^^^^^^^^cot third, Mr. Justice Nelson, ^ives a ^eparate op.mon upon a n gl. po^^^^^^^ ,.^^^ expressing cur, assuming that the Cireuu Court li'V\,»"^/'^'''^!^.,'.'''^'nown commonly as the Missouri compro- If disputed points declare constitutional ^^ are capable of being detp^ controversies growing out of them are ever to be brough to a clo.e ^^^^^ f^^^^ ions iVossess any authority, or command ""yXconstit it on, in providing forms of question of the competency ot C«/ig':f s. "'^Jer t,h. Con. ttm |^^^^^ ^^^ temporary government for the Territories, ^o deny to caiij one^^i ^^^^_ only an equal, but any participation with others n ^^^'^^.^^'^X^.^.^.p^tion would moi property, by excluding the labor and proper y ^^ "^^^^J^. f t'^^ ^e, has been be of any practical advantage, or confiscating it ^^lKu remo%eu authoritatively determined ^8'^'.^^^,^^';;^^^°^^"^;^ pre=e.:ed in the facts of the Dred When a grave and great question, such as tnat pre.ei United States, a Scott case, is properly brought before the Supreme g^.-o t e UmtcU tribunal, by the very terms of the Constitution, ln^es el .tht^^^^^^^ all cases " in law and ^q^ity/^^^^g^.f • t^ .r?re?:t on o the law which sustains and maturely considered and decided, the interpretation oi tuc and iustifies the decision must be accepted as correct. arising "Whether it involves a question of --titutional construo. ,on oi of a law^ under it, the court is constituted, under our systen the ^ ' ^^ '^^^^ ^^^^ Mr. Chair- Federal Government and its departments are concerned^ I a m> °J ^"J^ j ^he man, most wanton and uncalled for a.ssaults have ^f «^7?^ ^^J *^^^^^^^^^^ Suee- distinguished gentleman so long voted for by the ^^^J. ^^^"^ ^^^^g^^tji ^hich I MAX) spoke of it in the city of New lork m t^™ ^^ f;°°S ^XerTom York, wUl not in this presence repeat ; and another gentleman, a member n cm in e . (Mr. CoNKLiNG,) took occasion to address to this committee an elaborate and able argument to bIiow that that court was entitled to no other respect than that which any other body of men would be entitled to; and that its opinions were bind- ing only upon subordinate tribunals and parties litigating questions before the court; and on them only as to tlie particular subject in dispute. IS'ow, it is not thus that I have learned to regard tlie Supreme Court of tiie United States and its opinions. It is the constituted aibiter of questioiiSj^^jf constitutional and statute law. Gentlemen from Massachusetts will do well to recur to the profound and learned argument pronounced in the otlier end of t!ie Ca[)itol by one of her own Senators, in those days when it was not tlieir interest to assail and impair the popu- lar confidence in the integrity of tlie court, and the authority and weight of its ad- judications. I will read an extract from tlie speech of Mr. Webster made in the Senate of the United States, in reply to Mr. liayne: " But sir, the people h.ave wisely provided, in the Constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and Cribunal for seUling questions ot coiislitulional law. There are in the Coiislilution griuils of powers to Congress, and restrielions on those powers. There are also prohiliiiidiis on llie Suites. Some authorUy must therefore necessarily exist, having Ihe ulliniate jurisdicllon to fix and aseerlain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, unJ prohibitions. The Conslitulion has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end? By declaring that 'the Constitution and the laws of the Uniteu Stales, nuiile in pursiuince thereof, shall be the sui>reme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.' This was the first great step. By this, the supremacy of the Con- stitution and laws of the United Stales is tleclared. The jieople so will it. No State law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the Constitution or any law otthc United States. But who shall decide this question of interfereueeV To whom lies Ihe last appeal. This the Conslitulion itself decides also by declaring thai 'ahe judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under Ihe Consti- tution and laws of the l.lhited Slaies.' These two proposithms cover tlie whole ground. Tliey are in truth the keystone of the arch. With these it is a Constitution ; without them, it is a Confederacy." Again, in the argument which he addressed to tiie Senate, in rejily to Mr. Cal- houn in 18o3, he sums up the conclusions to which his argument carried him; and the following is one of them: " 3. That there is a supreme law, consisting of the Constitution of the United States, nets of Con- gress passed in pursuance of it, and treaties; and that, in eases not capable of assuming Hie char- acter of a suit in law or equity. Congress must judge of, and finally interiiret. this supreme law, so often as it has occasion to pas's acts of legislation ; and in ciiwi capdl/le of assuming, and actually assuming, the character ot a suit, the Sujireuie Court of the United States is the final interpreter." Declarations to tlie same effect have been made by the Supreme Court of tlie Stale of Massachusetts, whose decisions, from the learning and ability whicli they exhibit, command as much resjiect and possess as much wcigiit in tlie courts of ^'orth Carolina, as those of any otlier tribunal in the land. In Simms's case, decided in 1851, reported in 7 Cushing, the court, after declaring that the act, of 1850 was constitutional to the same extent as the act of 1793, and after citing various author- ities, State and Federal, including some from the State of Massachusetts, to the effect that that act was beyond question within the competency of t^ongress to enact, finally announces this'as indicative of the respect which, in their judgment, was due to tlie decision of the Supreme Court: " The principle of adhering lo j udicial precedent, especially that of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case depending upon the Constitution and laws of the United States, and thus placed within t/ieir Kpecial and Jinal jurix'Jiciion, m iihsnlutely veceittdri/ to the jx-aee. union, and har- monious action of the State anil General Governments The preservation nf both, wllh their full and entire powers, eacli in its proper sphere, was regarded by tin; trainers of the Cimstitution, and has ever since been regarded, as essential to the peace, order, and ))rosperity of the United Siaies." Such is the estimation in which alike statesmen and judges lield the decisions of the highest Federal court. Sucli was its recognized and admitted antliority with the jirofoundest constitutional lawyers of his day, and with one of the most learned and distinguished State courts of the Union. And now, sir, why is it that tiie same court is no longer regarded, in the estima- tion of gentlemen from tlie Xorth, with tlie respect which was once felt for its de- cisions?' Wliether or not that court possesses the ability and learning which dis- tinguished it when ].resided over by Chief Justice Marshall, yet as a tribunal, in- vested with full and ab.solute power to tletermine in cases arising before it questions of constitutional law, why should it be now so fiercely assailed, and the effort to displace It from the pojmlar regard so persistently pressed? It, is not difhcult to suggest the answer. It has been called on to decide, and lias decided. ;i (|ue,stion of con.stitutional power, the attempt to exorcise which had aroused and inflamed sec- tional passions to the highest degree. It has witlidrawn from the arena of party strife a ijue.stion u[)on which a great political organization rested. ^ Submission to its authority would lead to the disintegration of an organization built up on a propo- sition it"ha3 declared, at war with tlio Constitution. It is a life struggle with that authority, and it must be resisted. Biit is it true, as insisted on, that decisions of the highest court nreob'igatory only upon subordinate courts and parties to the litigation before it, and in this case only so far as the particular matter in dispute is concerned ? In a larger sense are they not binding upon the conscience of a*y man? Sncli a narrow view of the functions of the hii^hest tribunal of a State cannot be a cuiTcct one. It would de- grade it to tlie place of a mere arbitrator, and render it worthless for any piactical social good. In the view of the Constitution, it lias a higher office than simply to dispose of personal controversies, and to decide conflicting claims. Tliese it does; but in doing them it accomplishes a higher object. It has a larger sphere of duty. It establishes precedents; ascertains and settles princijdes; defines rights; deter- mines and enforces law. Silently and steadily it is building up a great system of jurisprudence u]ion which securely repose the peace and gooi] order of society. Tlie mantle of its influence which, like the dews of heaven, fall upon every part of the land, is tlirown around ever}^ interest of society, guarding it from violence and wrong, and in its bosom each personal and political ritrlit fluds a sure and ample guaranty. This all-pervading sense of the power and majesty of law, as recognized and enforced in the adjudications of the courts, so essential to the public peace and the security of individual right, inspires the respect which is felt for their authority and the confidence with which it is maintained. Eradicate from the heart of the people this sentiment of reverence for judicial authority and judicial expositions of the law, and you have done much to destroj^ the safeguards which are now provid- ed for the liberties and rights of the people. It is a disloyal spirit to the institu- tions of the country. I find that my time is rapidly passing, and I have no disposition to detain the committee unnecessarily further on this subject. I shall dismiss the topic by expressing my hearty concurrence in the tone and sen- timent to which my friend, the honorable gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Nklson,) gave utterance a short time ago, in the discussion of the Utah polygamy bill. He expressed himself thus: "Most imquestionably I think, Mr. Speaker, that since the decision in the Dred Scott case — a de- cision made by the highest tribunal in our own country and in the world ; by the only tribunal which is recognized as the dual arbiter on questions of ronstitutional law; a decision which I think was made directly upon the point before the court, and not an ohiUr dictum, as arguments in various parts of the country have assumed — I say, sir, upon that decision, that I hold Congress has no power to interfere with the institution of slavery in the Territories; because that institution is recognized. In some form or other, in three different places in the Constitution : first, in the provision as to the rendition of fugitives from labor; secondly, in the representation founded upon the ownership of slaves; and thirdly, the recognition of the African slave trade, and the power vested in Congress to abolish it. Believing that it is the duty of every good citizen— every truly patriotic man — to yield a ready obedience to the decisions of the higliest tribunal of the land, I think we ought all to be con- tent with the announcement that has been made there as to what is the law — what are our constitu- tional rights — what are our respective duties on the subject. 1 am satisfied with it. The learning, the integrity, the independence, of that exalteil tribunal, which could have had no motive under heaven to mislead it, should command the confidence and respect of the whole country; and every law-abiding man who reflects that there must be som.e point at which litigation is to cease, some period when strife must terminate, ought to be satisfied with it." "Well, sir, at last what is to become of this controversy ? Will enactments still be pressed and passed in opposition to the decision of that tribunal ? Do not gentlemen of the North know that the same jtidicial power wliich defeated the operation of the act of 1820 will declare such restriction null and void in every other case which arises under similar acts passed by this Legislature? What, then, is to be accomplished by such a course? Why is it that gentlemen will press upon the attention of the coitntry the necessity of incorporating into our territorial legislation that interdict •which the highest tribunal of this land has declared to be unauthorized b}' the Con- stitution, and absolutely null if put in the form of law? Why will they not return, as J invoke them, from everj- part of tlie country, to do, to the same peaceful meas- tires which in 18.50 allayed the then rising storm? Sir, we legislated in reference to the Territory of Washington in 1853. One of the last acts of the administration of Millard Fillmore was to sign a bill organizing the territorial government of Washington. There was no iirovisionupou the subject of slavery in that bill. Why can we not now organize teiiitorial governments without any action for or against the institution of slaveiy in their organic act? Trtie, we of the South entertain the opiiuon that under the a-gis I't our Constitution we may carry our ]iroperty there, and hold it there under the guarantees which that Con- stitution affords. And when gentlemen ask me how I can eitrry into a common Ter- ritory property which is controlled under the laws of a State wliere I live, let me ask, in reply, by what tenure we carry it upon the broad oec-an, bej-ond the juris- diction of a State? Do our slaves cease to be slaves when ihey pass upon a ship beyond the jurisdiction of the State tinder whose laws they are held ? By what law are they there retained as slaves, except by the law of property which exists in the State where they were held previous to their removal, and which follows them where ever they go, until they come in conflict with some prohibitory legisla- tion in some other part of the couuliy. 8 But, gentlemen ask, what series of laws will you carry there ? Will you carry the slave system of North Carolina, or of Alabama, or of any other State? We carry there 'but the result of those laws. We retain the rights which, under those laws, vested in the owner of property. We carry no local laws with us, but we carry property; and for the simple reason that the Constitution, which permits free and "slave States to co-exist under it, will let slavery and freedom exist together in a common Territory, which that Constitution overspreads and extends an undis- criminating, protecting hand; because the Constitution, which recognizes the ex- istence of slavery in the States which establish and maintain it, will not destroy, nor permit to be destroyed, the same rights of property, when the owner goes witli that property into a Territory in which'he encounters no hostile or prohibiting law. But whatever differences may exist as to the validity of this asserted right, still why may we not abandon an unprofitable and exciting agitation about the unim- portant question whether slavery shall or shall not exist upon the soil of the com- mon territory during the brief space between the first organization of a territorial government and its introduction as a new member into the sisterhood of States. The life of a territorial government is short before it emerges into a sovereign State and acquires all tlie rights of one. While the South cannot acquiesce in an act, on the part of the Congress of the United States, affecting her dignity as well as im- pairing her equal rights, and which places her in a position of inferiority and degra- dation ; and wliile she claims her constitutional lights, as expounded and declared by the'only tribunal whose determinations are binding upon all parts of this Con- federacy, surely gentlemen will not hazard tlie existence of this Republic by press- ing upon the comitry questions of the slightest import at best, to them, but which are rocking to its foundations the whole fabric of our Government. How much cause the noii-slaveholding States would have had for complaint, had they consented as they were repeatedly urged to do, and not refused, to extend the Missouri line to the Pacific ocean, through the entire public domain, and thus allow- ed the formation of embryo communities with institutions assimilated to those ot the different States, will be apparent from tlie statement which I hold in my liand and will submit to the committee. It exhibits, in square miles, the extent of the terri- torial possessions held by the Government in the year 1850, with reference to the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude. Area of territory, in 1S50, in square miles. Nortli of S6 degrees Sa minutes: , ,„ , j ,^ t> i 1 On-cr.-ii comprised within the parallels of 42 degrees and 49 degrees and the Eocky ^fountains and the Pacific ocean ............... ^41.4ba 2 Territory bounded bv forty-ninth parallel, Mississippi river, Iowa, and Rocky Mountains .2.3,24h a Wisconsin territory, between Sta-e of Wisconsin, Mississippi river, and residue of the old ^^ ^^^ 4 Indian Territory west of Missouri and Arkansas, and south of Platte river V^h^S 5*. Territory in California and New Mexico, west of PJo Grande to its source S-'-^'o 1,599,247 South of 36 degrees 30 minutes : 1. Indian territory as before ... .......; 9(U qs^ 2. Territory in California and Kew Mexico ^"'^''^"'^ 262,7-29 These observations are made in no spirit of harshness, but as an appeal to tlie sense of justice which I am sure pervades the great mass of the jieople of the coun- try Is it an aggression for nearly one half of tlie confederated States to ask tliat they be admitted to equal political rights? Was it an aggression to insist that one- sixth of theeimmon territory should be open to them, while :^ve-si.\ths wassecured to tlie Kortli? P.efiised this^ are we rightfully open to the charge of sectionalism in protesting against a total exclusion? I have no hingunge of menace to use in regard to the future. I, with every mem- ber of this bodj-, have taken a solemn obligation to abide by the Constitution of tlie United States, and it will be my ])rivilege and purpose, as long as I maintain a posi- tion on this floor, to endeavor to discharge, under that Constitution, every duty that I owe not merely to my own State and eonstitiu'nts, but to every part of tins wide Confederacy. Protection this Government must atl'ord to great and various inter- ests. It is the first duty of Govei-nment— the great object of its institution, and why will not tlic peojile of all parties withdraw their minds from the agitation issues which produce only the bitter fruit of sectional excitement? Why will th not turn their attention to the improvement of the country and the benefit of the white race, which we all, from the North and from tlie South, have ecpialiy at heart, and leave these States where slavery ->- •-*% A.3PI>ElNrDIX: THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. In the House of Represer.tatives, Februarj^ 19, 1S19, the bill to authorize the people of the Territory of Missouri to form a constitution preparatory' to admission as a State into the Union being under consideration, and an amendment having been offered in the following words: "That the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall be duly convicted; and that all children of slaves born within the said State after the admission thereof into the Uniou, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years" — it was proposed to divide the amend- ment. The House having agreed thereto, tlie vote on the first clause, ending with the word " convicted," was — Ayes — Northern Representatives 86 I Noes — Northern Representatives. ... 10 Southern Representatives. ... 1 ) Southern Representatives .... Cti On the last clause — 87 7G Ates — Northern Representatives. ... 80 I Noes — Northern Representatives. ... 04 Southei-n Representatives .... 2 | Southern Representatives .... 1-1 82 I 78 House Journal 272— '-i. On the engrossment of the bill as amended and ordering to a tliird reading — Ayes — Nortliern Representatives. ... 89 I Noes — Northern Representatives. ... 8 Southern Representatives .... 8 | Southern Representatives .... 48 97 I 56 In the Senate, February 27, 1819, on sti'iking out the first clause — Ayes — Northern Representatives. ... 51 Noes — Northern Representatives. ... 16 Southern Representatives .... 17 | Southern Representatives .... 22 I 16 10 On striking out second clause — Ayes — Northern Senators 13 I Noes — Xorlliern Senators ^ teoutheru Senators 18 | Southern Senatoi-s SI I 7 Each House adhering, the bill was lost. — Senate Journal 321-2. Februarii 1, 1820. — The bill to admit Maine into tlie Union having passed the House and been sent to tlie Senate, the Senate Committee, to whom it was leferi-ed, reported back the bill with an amendment, attachiiiij; thereto the Missouri bill witli- out the slavery restriction, and Mr. Iloberts, of I'euusylvania, moved an amendment, as follows: '.' Provided aho. That tl'.e further introduction into the said State of persons to be held lu slavery or involuntary servitude, within the same, shall be absolutely and irrevocably i>rohibited." The vote on this amendment was — Ayes — Northern Senators 16 1 jSToes — Northern Senators 6 Southern Senators | Southern Senators 21 10 I _ 27 Senate Journal, 134. Fcbruari/ 16, 1S20. — On agreeing to an amendment reported by the committee, omitting restriction — Ayes — Northern Senators 3 1 Noes — Northern Senators 19 Southern Senators 20 | Southern Senators 2 23 I 21 Seriate Journal, ICO-'l. February 17, 1820. — Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, moved this nraendment: " And be it further enacted. That, in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Loui.siana, which lies north of 36° 30' north lati- tude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude otherwise than in the punishment of crime, wJiereof the part}' shall have been duly convicted, sliall be, and is hereby forever prohibited. Provided always, that any person escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed a"^iul conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid." — Seriate Journal", 165-6. On this amendment the vote was — Ayes — Northern Senators 20 1 Noes — Northern Senators 2 Southern Senators 14 | Southern Senators 8 34 I 10 The question on engrossing the amendment and ordering the bill to a third read- ing, was decided in the affirmative, as follows: Ayes — Northern Senators 4 I Noes — Northern Senators 18 Southern Senators 20 Southern Senators. 24 I 20 Senate Journal, 166-'7. In the House, February 23, 1820, on disagreeing to the Thomas amendment, adopt- ed by the Senate, the vote was — Ayes — Northern Representatives. ... 02 I Noes — Northern Representatives. ... 10 Southern Representatives 67 | Southern Representatives 8 1.59 I 18 House Journal, 243-"4. February IB, 1820. — In the Senate the question on receding from the Thomas amendment was decided in the negative. Ayes — Northern Senators 3 1 Noes — Nortliorn Senators 10 Southern Senators h| Southern Senators 14 11 I 33 Senate Journal, 180-90. 11 In the House, the same day, the vote on the question of insisting on the disagree- ment to the Senate ameudiiieiit was — Ayes — Northern Representatives 03 I Noes — Northern Representatives 9 Southern Keprtse.talives CT | Southern Representatives 5 lOU I 14 House Journal, 256. March 1, 1S20. — The bill providing fur the future admission of Missouri, as an in- dej'eiident jiroposition, passed the House with the slavery interdict as oti'ered by Mr. Tallinadire, with the Icllowing vole: AvES — Northern Representatives 911 Xoes — Northern Representatives 9 Southern Rtpresentalives ()| Southern Reprebcutalives "ZS 91 I 8ii In Senate, March 2, in striting out the slavery interdict, the vote was — Ayes — Northern Senators 5 1 Noes— Northern Senators 15 Southern Senators 22] Southern Senators 27 j 15 And, thereupon, Mr. Thomas' amendment was adopted. — Senate Journal, 2ul. In the House, on agreeing to Seuate amendment, in striliing out the prohibitory clause of the House bill — Ayes — Northern Representatives 14 1 Noes — Northern Representatives. ... 87 Southern Representatives 7G | Southern Representatives . . . , 9U I 87 On agreeing to the Senate amendment moved by Mr. Thomas, (the Missouri com- promise,) the vote was — Ayes — Northern Representatives ... 95 I Noes — Northern Representatives. .. . 5 Southern Representatives ... . 39 | Southern Representatives ... . 87 134 I 42 House Journal, 277. February 12, 1821. — Missouri, under the enabling act, having formed a State con- stitution, applied at the next session of Congress for admission into the Union. Pending the joint resolution providing for her admission, Mr. Mallory, of Vermont, moved as follows: "To amend the said amendment by striking out all thereof after the word respects and inserting the following: Whenever the people of the said State, hy a^onvention appointed according to the manner provided by the act to authorize the people of Missouri to form a constitution and State governtnent, and for the admission of such State into the Union ou an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories, approved March 6, 1S20, adopt a constitution con- formably to the provisions of said act, and shall, in addition to said provisions, fur- ther provide, in and bj' said constitution, that neitlier slavery nor involuntary serv- itude shall ever be allowed in said State of Missouri, unless intlicted as a punishment for crimes against the laws of said State, whereof the party accused shall be duly convicted: Provided, That the civil condition of those persons who now are held in service in Missouri shall not be affected by this last provision." The vote on the amendment was — Ayes — Northern Representatives 61 | Noes — Northern Representatives 31 Southern Representatives | Southern Representatives, ... 76 61 I 107 Thus showing that of the 92 northern votes, 6 were given for the proposition, and ."^l against it, being nearly two-thirds of the entire vote of the North in opposition to the coiiipromise. — Senate Journal, 221-2. COMPROMISES OF 1850. In the Senate, June 5, 1850, Mr. Cuase having moved his amendment to the Com- promise bill in these words: "That nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing or permitting the introduction of slavery or the holding of persons as property within said Terri- tory," the vote thereon was as follows: 12 AvEfs — Messrs. Baldwin, Bradbury, Briirht, Cliase, Clarke, Cooper, Corwin, Davis, Dayton, Dodge, Douglas, Feleh, Green, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Norris, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Upham, Walker, Webster, AVhiteomb — 25. All northern Senators, exeept Sprnaiiee, of Delaware. Noes — Messrs. Atchison, Bads^er, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Butler, Cass, Clay, Clem- ens, Davis, Dawson, Dickinson, Dod2;e, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Husk, Sebastian, Soul6, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood — 30. All southern Senators except Messrs. Cass, Dickinson, Dodge, Jones, and Sturgeon. Mr. Seward then moved an amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than upon conviction for crimes, shall ever be allowed in either of said Territories of Utah and New Mexico," with the following result: Ayes — Messrs. Baldwin, I'radbury, Bright, Chase, Clarke, Cooper, Corwin, Davis of Massacliusells, Dayton, Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Felch, Green, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Norris, Seward, Shields, Smith, Uphara, Whitcomb, and Walker — 23. All northern Senators. Noes — Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Butler, Cass, Clay, Clem- ens, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Dickinson, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, JIangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Spruance, Sturgeon, Tui-uej-, Underwood, Webster, and Ynlee — consisting of south- ern Senators and G northern Senators, to wit: Cass, Dickinson, Dodge, Jones, Stur- geon, and Webster — 33. June Q, 1850. — Mr. Baldwi:^ moved an amendment in these words: "It being hereby intended and declared that the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery shall be and remain in force in said Territory, until tlic}' diall be altered or repealed by Coii.- (jrcss." The vote thereon was — Ayes — Messrs. Baldwin, Bright, Bradbury, Chase, Cooper, Corwin, Davis of Mass- achusetts, Dayton, Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Felch, Green, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Norris, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Upham, Walker, and Whitcomb — all northern Senators — 23. Noes — Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Butler, Cass, Clay, .Clemens, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Dickinson, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Foote,' Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Husk, Sebastian, Soule, Stui-geon, Turney, Underwood, and Yulee — whereof 6 are northern, the others southern Senators — 32. June 10. — Mr. Davjs, of Mississippi, moves as follows: "And that all laws, or parts of laws, usages, or customs, pre-existing in the Ter- ritories acquired by the United States from Mexico, and which in said Territories restrict, abridge, or obstruct, the full enjoyment of any right of persons or property of a citizen of the United States, as recognized or guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States, are hereby declared and shall be held as repealed." Ayes — Northern Senators 1 Noes — Northern Senators 26 Southern Senators 18 | Southern Senators 4 18 I P.O Mr. Douglas offered the Missouri compromise line as the South boundary of Utah : ' Noes — Northern Senators 25 Southern Senators, (from Del- aware,) ,• . . 2 Ayes — Northern Senators, (Dickinson and Douglas,) 2 Southern Senators 2 1 20 In the Iloiifie of liepreaentatlven, Decemher 31, ISIO. — Mr. Boot moved an instruc- tion to the Committee on Tei-ritories, to bring in a l«ill to organize territorial govern- ments in the jiiii't of Mexico acquii'cd by the treaty of Guadaloujie Hidalgo, east of Siei-ra Nevada Mountains, and proJiibitincf daiiery therein. Motion to lay on the table — Ayes — Northern Itopresentati ves. . . . 10 I Noes — Northern Pepresentatives. . . 101 Southern i;<;preseutatives. . . . 73 | Southern llepresentatives. . . 83 I 101 February A, IS.IO. — On same motion Ayes — Northern Representatives... 2".t Southern Representatives. . . 70 105 Noes — Northern llepresentatives. ':n Southern Representatives. ... 75 13 September 5, 1850.— Mr. Toombs moved an amendment to the Ne^y Mexico Terri- torial bill, as follows: "And that the Con.^titution of the United States, and such statutes thereof as may not be locally iiiai.[ilicable, and the common law as it existed in the British colonies of America until the 4t.h day of July, 1776, shall be exclusive laws of said Territory, npou the subject of African slaveiy, until altered bv the pro- per authoiity." ' Ayes— Northern Representatives <) I Noes— Northern Representatives. . . 125 Southern Representatives 05 | Southern Representatives. 13'j OPINIONS OF HENRY CLAY. Extract from the speech of Henry Clay, on thr. Compromise Bill, delivered ia the Senate May 13, 1850, m reference to slavery prohibition. — Apjp. Cong. Globe, 573. "Mr. President, what have we been looking at? What are we looking at? The 'proviso'— an abstraction always thrust upon the South by the North'^against all the necessities of the case— against all the warnings whicli the North ought to have listened to coming from the South, 'pressed unnecessarily for any northVrn object; opposed, 1 admit, by the South, with a degree of earnestness uncalfed for, 1 tliink, by the nature of the provision, but with a degree of earnestness natural to the South, and which the North itself would perhaps have displayed, if a reversal of the condition of the two sections of the Union could have taken jdace. Why do you of the North press it? You say because it is in obedience to certain sentiments in behalf of human freedom and human rights, which you entertain. You are likely to accomplish those objects at once, by the progress of events, without pressing this obuoxious measure. You may retort, why is it opposed at the South ? It is opposed at the South because the South feels that when once legislation on the subject of slavciy begins, there is no seeing where it is to end. Begin it in the District of Columl)ia: begin it m the Territories of Utah, and New Mexico, and California, assert your power there to-day, and in spite of all protestations— and you are not wanting in making protestations— that you have no purpose of extending it to the southern States, what security can you give them that a new sect will not arise with a new version of the Constitution, or with something above oi below the Constitution, which shall authorize them to carry their notions into the bosoms of the slavehold- ing States, and endeavor to emancipate from bondage all the slaves there. Sir, the South has felt that her security lies in denying at the threshhold your right to touch th^ subject of slavery. She said, 'begin, and who can tell where you will end.' Let one generation begin and assert the doctrine for the moment, forbearing as they may be to secure their present objects, their successors may arise with new notions and new principles and new expositions of the constitution and laws of nature and carry those notions and new principles into the bosom of the slaveholdinf-- States The cases, then, gentlemen of the North and gentlemen of the South, do not stand upon an equal footing. When you, on one hand, unnecessarily press an offensive and alarming measure on the South, the South re]jels it from the highest of all hu- -viu notions of action, the security of property and life, and of evervthiu'T else in- resling and valuable in life." te .Extracts from the xpeech of Henry Clay, on the Compromise Bill, delivered in the Senate, July 22, 1850, as reported in the Congressional Globe, Appendix, MlU-11. " And what will the South gain ? The South avoids the assertion by Congress of the dangerous principle, as they regard it, contained in the Wilmot proviso- places beyond controversy nine hundred miles of the Territory of Texas, on the Rio Grande now in dispute; gains an ethcient fugitive slave bill, and silences the agitation about the abolition of slavery in the District. It may hapjien— and I am' not goino- to disguise my convictions as to the probabilities of the fact— that the South Vilfget no territory in Utah, New Mexico, or California ada].ted to slave labor in which slaves will be introduced. But this is not the fault of Congress. It is congressional power congressional usurpation, congressional assumption of an unlawful authority over the institution of slavery, against which the South raises her voice in protesta- tion. If she cannot get slave t.^rritory in California, New Mexico, and Utah who^e whose fault is it? She cannot blame Congress, but must upbraid nature's law and nature 8 God. After stating his opinion that slavery did not exist in the recently acquired terri- tory, he jiroceeds: "If, therefore, I am right in these opinions which I have expressed, to run a line at 35 , or 36 30 through California, without declaring what the effect of that line 14 Bhoukl be, either south or north of it, would, I repeat, be I'unning a line in tlie fiUiJ, a line without motive, without purpo.-^e, without aceoinplishino- anj' end what- ever. Thei'efore, I must sav, that those iSenators upon tiie other side who have con- tended for an express recogintion of the right to carry slaves south of tliat line have contended for soMiething much more perfect and efficient than to run a naked line without an}' such declaration. But there are two considerations which oppose in- superable objections to any such recognition or declaration to carry slaves south of that line. The first is that you cannot do it without an assumption of power on the j^ai't of Congress to act upon the institution of slavery; and if they have the power in one way, thej- have the power to act upon it in the other way; and the power to act upon it either way is what you have denied and opposed, and endeavored Ui prevent being accomplished for the last two or three years. It would be an assump- tion, a usurpation, according to the soutliern docti'ine, for Congress to exercise any power either to interdict or establish slavery upon either side of a given line. The other objection to accomplishing this end is, that it is impractiedble and unattain- able." The following declaration was issued after thepassage of the Compromise measures: "The undersigned memhei's of the Slst Congi-ess of the United States, believing that a renewal of sectional controversy ujion t!ic sulyeet of slavery would be both dangei'ous to the Union and destructive ol' its objects, and seeing no mode liy whicii such controversy can be avoided, except by a strict adlierence to the settlement thereof effected by the couipronnsc acts passed at the last session of Congress, do hereby declare their intention to maintain the said settlement inviolate and to re- sist all attempts to repeal or alter tiie acts aforesaid, unless b_y the general consent of the friends of the measure, and to remedy such evils, if any, as time and expe- rience uiay develop. " And for tlie purpose of malcing this resolution efrective, they further declare that they will not support for tlie ofnce of Presi.lent, Vice I'resident, or of Senator or Representative in Congress, or as member of a Sfnte Legislature, any man of whatever party, who is not known to be opposed to the disturbance of the settle- ment aforesaid, and to the renewal in any form of agitation upon the subject of sla- very. IIKNKT CLAY, n. W. ITTLLTATID, J. L. .TOTTXSON, HOWKLL COBB. W. M. GWY.W, D. A. BOKKK, O S. MOUETIEAD, V. K. McLEAX, J. I!. THOMPSON, WILLIAM DITKi:. PAJIUEL KI.LIOT, G. U. ANDIiEWi^, KOBKt;T L KOtjE, A. G. WA'l'KlNri, .7. M. ANDKIISON, H. S. FOOTK, D. OUTLAW, W. W xMAXGT'M, W. 0. DAWiSON, A. EVAN-^. ,INO R KKRi:, JAS. BROOKS, II. A. I;i;lLART), J. MOIiToX. T. J. lUTSK, (l 11. WILI,1AMS, .1. 1'. (WLDWELL, A. H. STEPHENS, T. S. liAYMoN'>, K. J. BOWIE, JEKE. CLEMENTS, S. IMIILLIPS PIUENIX, ED. DEP.EPJIY, K. TOOMBS, A. II. SHEPHERD. Y.. C. CABELL. J. COOPER. A. M. si'iiKKMEllIIORN, II. MARSHALL, M. P. GE.\TRY, ]). r.RI'CK. A. F. O^YEN." T. G. I'KATT, J. li. TIIURMAN. DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM. From the Democratic Platform adopted in National Convention, in 1852, and re- affirmed in "[^hf): "Resolved, That Congress has no power under the Constitution to interfere witii or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that Kuch States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohiljitcd b}' the Constitution. That all eiforts made to induce Con- gress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation tliereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming a:id dangerous consequences, and tliat all I'uch efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the hapiiincss of the jieople, and endanger the stability and permanence of the bunion, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions." That the foregoing proposition covers and was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress ; and, therefore, the Democratic rsn'ty of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide bv, and adhere to, a faithful execution of the acts known as the Compromise measures, settled by the Congress of 18.')(), llie "act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor included," which act beiiit^ designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity tliereto, be i-ejiealed or so changed as to destroy or impair its efTicieney. 'J'hat the JJe/iiocratic party will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made. 15 WHIG PLATFORM. In National Convention, 1S52, the Whig party resolved : "That the series of measures, commonly known as the Compromise, inchulinc: tho FuE^itive Shave Law, are acquiesced in by' the Whia; party of the United States, as a settlement in principle and substance, a final settlemeid of the dnngernu.i and ex- citinci questions which they embrace; and so far ^s the fugitive shave law is con- cerned, we will maintain the same, and insist on its strict enforcement until time and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard against evasion or abuse, not impairing its piesent efficiency; and we deprecate all further agitation of slavery questions as dangerous to our peace, and will discduntemuiee all efforts at the renewal or continuance of such agitotion in Congress or oat. of if, V'/ifiievcr, whercever, or however the nttcinpt may he mad'' ; and wn loill mniri.taiu this system as essential to the nationality of the Whig j^arty and the integrity of the Il7li07l,." SUPREME COURT. In the Dred Scott case, in reference to the power of Congress to legislate for the exclusion of slavery and slaveholders from the territorial possessions of the United States, the Chief Justice uses this language in delivering the opinion of the court: " The power over persons and property of which we speak, are noc only not graiited to Congi'ess, but are, in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to ex- ercise them. And this prohibition is not confined to Ihe States, but the words are general and extend to the whole territory, over wiiieh the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those p'lrtions of it remaining under Territorial gov- ernment as well as that covered by .States. It is a total absence of power every- where within the domir.ion of the United States, and places the citizens of a Terri- tory, so far as these rights are concerned, on the same fooli7ig with citizens of the Uni' ted Stales, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the General Government might attempt under the plea of implied or incidental powers. And if Congress itself catmot do this — if it is beyond the powers conferred on the Federal Government, it will be admitted, we presume, that it could not authorize a Territorial government to exercise them. It could confer no power on any local government, established by its authorit}-, to violate the provisions of the Constitu- tion. " jYo laws or usages of other nations, or reasoning of statesmen or jurists upon the relations of master and slave, can enlarge the powers of the Government, or take from the citizens the rights they have reserved. And if the Constitution recognizes the right of pro])e)'ty of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between tiiut description of property and other projierty owned by a citizen, no tribunal acting under the authoi-ily of the United States, whether it be legislation, executive or ju- dicial, has a right to drav) such distinction or deny to it the henffit of the provisions and guaranties Wiiich have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the Government. 'Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of pmpjcrty in a slave is dis- tinctly and expressly afiirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandize and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States, in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the Gov- ernment, in express terms, is pledged to (iroteet it in al! future time if the slave esca]ies from his owner. This is done in plain words — too plain to be misunder- stood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than, property of any other description. The only power conferred, is the power, coupled toiih. the duty, of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights." REPUBLICAN OPINIONS. Extract from the speccli. of R. Oonkling, of New York, in the House of Representa- tives, April IQ, 1860. "These, and many other considerations which the hour rule has prevented my adverting to, lead me to conclude : First, That the judgments of the Supreme Court are binding only upon inferior courts and parties 'litigant. Undoubtedly when a constitutional question is decided, so long as the court adheres to the decision, acts of Congress repugnant to the principle laid down will be inoperative just so far,_ iu tlie language of Mr. Van Buren, as they depend upon the courts for their execution and no further. 16 i "Second, That the decisions of the Supreme Court are not obligatory upon Con- gress in any sense, but like other arguments, are addressed to the discretion of Co'n- gress. Being the solemn acts of one department of the Government, they are entitled"' to great cont-ideration fi-om tlie other departments, and ought not on frivolous grounds to be repudiated. But whenever a decision is, in the judgment of Congress, subver- sive of lire )'ight3 and liberties of the people, or is ot/iervjise lacrtfuUy erroiieotis, it is not only ili.e riykt, but the solemn duty of Congress pDrsisteidly to disregard it." And again, after quoting from ,a letter of Mr. Jeflerson, about reorganizing the judiciary: "In 1860 we liave a chance to go and do likewise, and I trust we shall improve it. A reorganisation a-nd rcinmgoralion of the Court with just regard to commercial and roLiTio.AL consid'rations, is one of the a/uspicious promises of Republican ascen- dency ;" and concludes tlius: " With this refoi-ni aceomplished, the vampire of slavery, now flitting among the shadows of a sheltering tribunal, will spread its wings once more over tliat hospita- ble domain where its ministrations are considered essential to the full development 'of the highest type of white civilization.'" In a speech delivered at the Cooper Institute, in l\e\v York, April 13, 1860, the following language is used by the Hon. John Sliernjan, in sjjeaking of the Court: "In a remote room of the Capitol at Washington you will find sitting a court of grave and reverend gentlemen in black gowns. Tread soflly, for every thing about this room has a funereal aspect. It is tlie tribunal wiiich prescribes the platforms and writes out the doctrines of the Democratic party." Extracts frovi speeches iiiade April 21, 18G0, in the House of Iieprescntatlvcs. Mr. Tompkins of Ohio, said: " 1. I cliarge upon slavery that the enforcement of the Missouri compromise was an aggression upon the Ixorth. "2. I charge the annexation of Texas, whereby theJIexican wai' was brought upon the country-, more than two hundred millions of money were si>ent, and many thous- and lives sacrilieed, as an aggression. "3. I charge that the ado|)tion of the fugitive slave law, with many of its odious and obnoxious piovisions, was an aggression upon the people of the Korth. "4. I ciiarge that the decision of the iSuprenie Court, in the Bred Scott case, was an aggression upon tlie Kortii. It was a decision made for the benefit of slavery, and to deprive the people of the States of their equal rights in the Territories. "5. I charge that the repeal of the Missouri comjironiise line was an outrageous aggi-ession ujion the rights of the Korth ; disreputable to the nation and dishon- orable to the party engaged in ic; one that has brought in its train innumerable woes, and created au excitement that will not be allayed duriug the present gen- eration. "(i. I charge that the murders, robberies, and arsons in Kansas, were aggicssiona of slavery." Mr. McKnight, of Pennsylvania, said: "But wliile we say 'hands offl' as regards the local relations of 3-our own institu- tions, we should feel recreant to humanity, to civilization, to the euliglitened sjiirit ol tlie age, if we did not condemn and contest these new dogmas of tlie Calhoun or modern Democracy; if we did not seek to retain and secure to freedom and free labor that vast expanse of territory whieli now attracts tlie luisbandmau and liie vine-dresser. The mission of the Jtepubliean party is to secure for this immense area tiie multiplied blessings of freedom, always antieii)ated and desired by tlie eai-l3^ fathers of the Kepulilie, and advocated in glowing terms, in tliese latter days, by AVebstcr, Benton, and Clay; tlio last of whom said, but two years ago: "'Coming as I do, from a slave State, it is my solemn, deliberate, and wcll-m"- tured detcrmiriiition tliat no power — no earthly power — :?hall compel me to vo for the 2'i>3itive introduclion of tiiat line (that is, Missouri line, tiO' oU) into ne territory. " 'Sir, while you reproach, and justly, too, our ISritish ancestors for the introdu lion of this institution upon the continent of America, 1 am, for one, unwilling lli ^ the posterity of tlie ])resent iiihalntants of California and Is'ew Mexico shall repi oa< : us for doing just what wc reproached Great Britain for doing to us.'" 2- ui; (S: W- Printed by Lemuel Towers. „BRABY OF CONGRESS OOA 1895 906 1 Hollinger pH 8^ MiU Run F03-2193