mmm ^73 (lass E '^^1 1 ^ SPEECH v" or w OF DELAWARE, On the following amendment proposed bjMr. Taylor, of N. Y. to tlie Bill authorisiag the people of Missouri to form a Constitution : Section four, line twenty -five, after the Mord "States," insert the following: " And shall ci-daiu and establish, that there ihall be nei- ther slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said state, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted : Provided ahvays, That any person escaping into the same, li'ora wjjom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any other state, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claimitig his or her labor or service, as aforesaid ; And pro. 'Tiided, a(s9. That the said provision shall not be construed to alter the condition or civil rights of any person now held to service or la- bor in the said territory." DELITERXI) IX TllZ HOrsi; OF HEPnESKXTATTTES OF THE VSITZD 6rAX£S, FEBIIUART 7, 1S20. Mr. Chairman: If it were rot for the peculiar situation in which I shall be placed, in regard to sdYne respectable opinions prevailing in the state from which I have the honor to c^me, by the vote I shall feel it my dutv to give upon the present occasion, I should not trespass upon the time of the committee. If the eloquence and ability which have been already em- ployed in this det) te have not produced any change of opinion, I have not the presumption to suppose that it will be in my power to vary the result; but, if it is not for me to disiurb the opinions of others, I may af- ford a just-fication of my own, and furnish to those who may hereafter feel any interest in the course I deem it my duty to pursue, an exposition of the mo- tives by which I am f5;overned. I concur with the honorable mover of the amend- ment, that it presents an act of no ordinary legisla- tion; and I am very sure he cannot easily overrate its importance---an importance derived; not mere from ^3 7? the intrinsic magnitude of the question, in all its rela- tions, th-^n the excilement and tumult to which it has given rise in every part of the republic. I do not be- lieve that any subject has ever arisen in this country, since the formation of the government, which has produced a more general wgiiation, or in regard to which greater pains have been taken to inflame the public mind, and control the deliberations of the national councils. The dazzling reward of popular favour, invested with all its fascinations, has been held up on the one hand, and the appalling spectre of public denunciation, with all its frightfulness, on the other. The sincere and humane, actuated. I am sure, by the best and purest motives; the aspiring de- magogue rfnd ambitious politician; those who wish well to their country; and those who seek power on the troubled sea of popular commotion; have promiscu- ously united in these public agitations, until the press has teemed, and our tables groaned, with a mass of pamphlets and memorials beyond example. Tihe state which I have the honor, in part, to repre- sent, has been the theatre of a full share of this agita- tion; and the honorable legislature of thai respectable state has been pleased recently, to take up the subject, and have unanimously resolved that, in their opinion, Congress have the cor stitutiond power, and ought, to impose this restriction upon the new states Entertaining the respect I do for the intelligence of the people of my own state, and the character cf their legis^'ature, I cannot find my opinion in opposition to theirs without the most unfrigned regret. For, al- though I do not ' oncede to the legislature of a state the right of instructing the representatives of the peo- ple in Congress, or of employing its official ch- racter to influence their conduct, or to affect their responsi- bility, yet, viewing their acts, in ihib respect, as the opinions of the individual members merely, I cannot regard them with mdifterence, selected, as they un- doubtedly should be, from their fellow citizens, as dis- tinguished for some perlion both cf virtue and intelli- gence. I am free to admit that, in subjects of general policy merely, the will of the people, when fully and fairly ascertained, is always entitled to great weight; and, upon an occasion like the present, if I were influenc- ed by motives of expediency only, I should be much disposed to yield my impressions to that will. But, in constitutional questions, the representative is, or ought to be, governed by higher considerations; and he would be unworthy of his trust who could be re-i gardless of them. He is sworn to support the consti-l tution, and he takes his seat in this house, to lep:islat( for the nation, undtr the provisions of that nsttumentJ His own iniegrity, and the saiety of our common inj stitutions, depend upon his strict personal accounta^ bility: his own opinions, formed by the best lights (>£ his own impartial judgment, must be his guide, and he cannot adopt those cf others, when conflicting with his own, without a surrender of his conscience. In such cases, popular feeling &nd legislative recommen- dation can have no greater influence than to weaken one*s confidence in his own impressions, and to dic- tate a re-investigation of the subject, to see if con- clusions may not h-'ve been drawn from false premises, or views overlook'. d, which, if they hid been advert- ed to, would have led to a different result. I have al- lowed the recommendation of the legislature of Dela- ware to have such an effect in this instance. I have deliberately reviewed and reconsidered this im- portant subject, divested, I am sure, of any im.proper feeling, and prompted by every allurement of popular favor; to re ch a conclusion in conformity with their views; but, I am bound to say, ivfter this re-h»vestiga- tion, pursued with great labor, tnd a full sense of my responsibility, 'hat I believe, in my cnnsnier-ce, that Congress does not possess the power to impose the contemphued restriction. In this belief, then, Mr. Chairman, artd resting upon the principles of the con- stitution, and my duty to a powe. hi^rher than any le- gislatu e, I must regret the difference of opi< ion, and be contentvd with an uprif;ht discharge of my public trust. I will t^ke leave to sjy,sir. in the language of an illustrious man on another occasion, who I could desire to imitate in m ny other respects, "I honor the people and rt'spectthe lef^islature; but here are many things iii the favor of either, which are objects, in my account^j 4 not worth'ambition. I wish popularity, but it is that pepularity which follows^ not that which is run after. It is that popularity which, sooner or later, ne>er fails to do jastice to the pursuit of nobie ends, by noble means. ) shall not, therefore, on this occasion, do what my conscier.ce tells me is wrong, to court the applause of thoiis:aidSf nor shall I avoid doing what I deem to be right, to avert the artillery of the press.'* I shall not, in this place, sir, imitate the exaiople of other geni-iemen, by making professions of my love of liberty, nnd aohorrerce of slavery; not because I do not entertain them, but because I consider that the great principles of neither are involved in this amend- ment. It is '^ coloring, to be sure, of which the sub- ject is susceptible, and which has been used in great profusion, but i^ serves much more to inflame feelings and prejudices unfriendly to a dispassionate delibera- tion, than to aid the free exercise of an unbiassed judgment. This amendment does not propose, nor has it for its object, to inhibit the introduction of slavery from parts beyond the United States : in such a scheme there is no intelligent man in the Union who would net coTcUally concur. Neither dots it propose to pro- mote the emancipation of the slaves now in the coun- try; this is admitted to be impracticable; the uildness of enthusiasm itself acknowledges its incompetency for such an undertaking. The truth is, sir, that this species of unhappy beings are now among us; brought here, in part, by events beyond our control, and, in part, under the authority of our own consiitulion; and it behoves us, by a wise end prudent administration of our powers, to meliorate their conditior, and accom- modate the evil, as far as it may be practicable, to the peace and happiness of our white population, and the stability of our institutions. It is not pretended, even, that the condition of the unhappy slave himself would be improved by the success of this amendment: on the contrary, it has been insinuated, as boldly as the sentiment would justify, that his confinement to a narrower compass might lead to his extirpation, by the gradual, but sure, process of harder labor, and scarcity of subsistence, I am free to say, that the condition of the slave himself would be meliorated by his dispersion; nor do I attach the same importance, as some gentlemen appear to do, to ihe danger of en- couragiojr an illicit importation from abroad by permit- ting a market west of the Mississippi. It is an argu- ment founded on the futility of legal restraint, the worst possible species of argument by which a legis- lature could be influenced It would pro^ the in- utility of every act of legislation, or might we used to justify every species of usurpation. It woiJd equally demonstrate the futility of the propo^^ed amendment itself; for, if gentltmen cannot hope to exterminate the foreign slave trade, by all the precui/ ions legiti- mately in their power, founded in an uranimityof le- gislation, strengthened by the powerful force of public sentiment, and the abominable nature of the traffic itself, what greater reliance can thty pi. ce U;'on this restrictio , foisted into the constitution of a free peo- ple agaiest their consej t, n which ace unt, alone, it would be -an object of hatred and Cfjnte f pt, and the violation be winked at by a great portion of the people, if not by their public aufh rities. Sir, this amendment does not even propose to pre- vent the introduction of slavery into Missouri for the first time; it has already taken root there; we found it there when we acquired the territ ry and it has grown and extended under the sanction of our own laws; but the whole force and effect of the amendment is, to take from the people of Missouri the right to de- cide, for themselves, whether they will permit persons removing thither, from other states in which slavery is toleiated, to takr their slaves with them. '1 his -^^b- ject wf)uH not be undesirable, if it could be accom- plished by the legitimate powers of Con^rebs; but we hiive no rigl'.t to do it by an assumption of power in ourselves, or by an unauthorized use of the power of others Mr, ChaiTnan, the great question involved in this amendment, is neither more nor less than this: Whe- ther Congress can interfere with the peopla of Mis- souri m the formation of their constitution, to compel them to introduce into it any provision, touching their municipal ri^^ hts, against their consent, and to give up 1* 6 their right to change it, whatever may be their future condition, or that of their posterity? Every thing be- yond this is merely the imposing garb in which the power comes recommended to us. It is certainly true, that an attempt to take from this people the right of deciding whether they will, or will not, tolt;rate sla- very among them, is less objecticnabk because of its end, than it would be if it interfered with some other local relation, or right of property; but the power to do this, implies a power of much greater expansion. Congress has no greater power over slavery, or the rights of the owner, in any particular state, than it has over any other local relation, or domestic rit/ht; and, Ihereforel a power to interfere with one, must be de- rived from a power to interfere with all. Sir, it is manifest, from the avowal of the honorable mover, that he cont^^nplates a wider scope of power, and the attainment oHmportant ends, other than those which lie upon the surface of this amendment. The getitle- man seemed not to limit his view to the municipal ef- fect of this power; in his eye it was to have an indi- rect operation upon the federal powers of the general government; since his chief cbjectien appeared to be to the enumeration of slaves in the ratio of congres- sional representation. Sir, I think it will be in my power so shew, that the gentleman's ftars, on this score, are groundless; but they serve to prove, never- theless, that thii is neither, wholly, a question of sla- very, nor a power limited to this single object, but that it is only one, selected from an inimense mass of power, authorizing Congress to control the rights of a free people, in the formation of their state constitu- tion; and, in this way, to enlarcfe the operation, it not the nature, of the political power of the general go- vernment. Having thus attempted to place the real question before the committee upon what I conceive to be its true grounds, I beg leave to invite their attention to a closer examination of this s ibject. By the constitution of the United States, it is pro- vided, that "new states may be admitted, by the Con- gress, imo this Union." This is a power to ^'•admit** a **state"--.it is no power to fornix or create, a state; •it pre supposes the right to form a state to reside tlsewbtre, and. as I shall atteinpi to shew more par- ticularly hereafter, that right resides in the people, and this clause invests Congress wiih no power to ir.ter- fere with the exercise of it. It is also a power to *w free to exercise it. The people of Missouri come here with the treaty of 1803 in their hands; they demand admission int-i the U- nion as a matter of right- rhpydo not solicit it as a favor. If their cotistitution is republican, and consistent with the provisions of that under which we aie actin.^,we have no alternative, unless it is to refuse to execute our own contract — to violate the plighted faith of the nation. No one will undertake at this day, to d.ny, that the United States had the right tj acquire the Territory of Louisian i. They had tise right also t . acquire it by contract; the right of acquirint^ includes the right of governing ii; and, in contracting lor its acquisition » it was competent to stipulate the terras and the princi- pies by which the right ci gcverr.inp: it should be ex- ercised. If the United States were competent to make the treaty, the treaty was competent to take away the discretion of Congress, for it is declartd to be the "supreme law of the land." It must also be conceded, that the power to admit new states, is one of the powers of the gener^al govern- ment^ and I shall not deny that, in its ordinary exer- cise, it belongs to Congress; but, beirga power in the general government, given up by the states, its exer- cise may be regulated and controlled by the treaty- making power; which is the extraordinary and su- preme power of the same government. The powers of the general government are executive, legislative> and judicial; and are, ordinarily, exercised by the re- spective departments on which they n&turally devolve: they may or may not be exerted, as circumstances make it proper. Bui the treaty-making power is the extraordinary power, which may stipulate with regard to the exercise of any of them, and its stipulations are binding; because they render the exercise of the power necessary. No tieaty can be unconstitutional which stipulates for the performance of any matter which it is within the power cf the general govern- ment to perform; a distirxticn to which the honor- able gentleman from Penns; Ivania, Mr. Hemphill, did not advert, when he fourd it necessary to elude the ob- ligations of the treaty of 1803, by pronouncing it un- constitutional. A treaty is only unconstitutional, when it stipulates for the exercise cf powers, or the sur- render of rights, which never have bttn given to the general government, but belong to the states and the people. This is the exposition which has ever been given to the treaty-making power, since the famous British treaty. It would be difficult to imagir e a treaty that did not contain some stipulations ii? regard to the powers either of the executive or Lgislativc departments of the government. The power to regu- late commerce, with foreign nations, o appropriate money, and to raise armies, belong to Congrt^s. But the treaty-making pov\er may make stipMlations in re- gard to either, and for the exercise of either, and the Congress and the nation would be bound by them= 10 * The interference of Congress miglit, in some instan- ces, be wec-ssary to carry the stipulations into eiTect; and it would be their duty in good faith to yield it. If they refused, the national faith would be vio- lated, but the treaty would not be void. In the very instance of the Louisiana treaty, it was stipulated, aipong other things, to pay as the price of the cession. This amounted to a stipulation that Congress sliould appropriate that sum of money. Congress cat^not have, and ought not to have, a more ur limited discretion, in the exercise of any po'.ver. than in that ofupproprijting money; yet the treaty stipulated, that they should exercise the power, and the Congress did exercise it; could not the treaty then stipulate that they shouW admit a state into the Union, and if it do so, are not Congress equally bound to execute it? Shall it be said, that their discretion is gone in the one case, but exists in the other? Then, sir, has the treaty of 1803 stipulated that Congress shall exercise their power to admit this state, and have Congress sanctioned the stipulation? The third article contains this provision: " The inhabitants oi {h*d ceded territory shall be incorporated in the union of the Unitpd States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment i>f all the rights^ advantages nd immunities of citize .s of the United States; nd in the meantime shall be maintained ^nd protected \n ihe free enjoyment of tht'a liberty, pro- perty and the religion which they profess." It must be conceded thn this .article was designed to have some meaning. c=nd to secure to the inhab- itants some rights n(\ advantages, to which thev could hiive no clai>n without it It will not do, in the in- terpret tion of ;.n importa it instrument of this des- cription, to say that the only article which applies to theinhaSitants whose rij^hts would be affected bv the tr.aisfer, is a mere matter of form without subsiance or desigjn. Its fjwn language clearly imports its in- tention, to conftv *^ rights, advantages^ and immuni- ties'''' of \ political character, and such as they could not have claimed as a matter of ri^ht, without this stipulation. What would have been the condition of u these inhabitants in relation to the government of the United States, if the tre-ty h d not contained this provision? Sir, the power of the general government over them .^nd the territory, would have been su- preme: it could have kept i hem in t? state of perpetu- al colonial dependence; placed over them any form of government whate*er, asid, if it pleust^d, ha»e sold them agai;. to any foreign power. It •• ould na\e been completely discretionary to h.ive** i;icoi';;orflfed'* them into the Union or not, as it pleased and to give ihem such rights as it thought proper, and wh n it pleased. Now these dre the very p'lwtrs this treaty meant to tie up; and when we consider the objections which the language -nd forei ..n habits of these inhabitants might have interposed to their incorporation into the Union, and that the United States were barg. ining more for the free naviga ion of the Mississippi river, than an ac- cession of territory 01' prpulation; it became an im- perious duty on the French government to stipr.late, that if the United States obtained their object, they should be compelled to extftnd the rights and advan- tages of free government to the inhabitants. They are to be incorporated into the Union of the United States, aud are to be* admitted as soon as pos- sible to the enjoyment of the rights, r^dvantages, and immunities, &c. nnd, ' in the meantime, they are to be protected in the free enjo ment of their property.** This latter claim, shews that their incorporation into the Union, me.mt more than a territorial form of go- vernment; they were to be under such a government until they cculd be iricorporated into the Union, and, during that time, their property was not to be disturb- ed It WHS only under thfit form of government that the United States could interfere with these rights; their power would cease when it became possible to incorporate them into the Union, and admit them to the enjoyment of all the '* rii^hts, i dvjrtfges, and im- munities (»f citizens of the United States;'* in virtue of which, they would, themselves, be authorized to regu- late their own property. Now, Mr. Chdirm.an, he people of Missouri cannot be incorporated into the Union, but, as the people of a ^^state^'* exercising state government. It is a union of 12 sfaies, not of psople^ much less o^erritories. A ter- riforia^ government ^can form no integral pait of a union of state governments. Neither can the people cfa territory enjoy ^ny federal eights, until ihey h.ive formed estate k;o*'ernaient, and obtained admission in- to the Union. The most important o£ ihe federal ad- %'3magcs and immuriities, consist in the right of being represented in Cons-ress, as well in the Senate as in this House, the right of pariicipaiing in the councils bv which they are governed. These are emphatically the " rights^ advantagesy and immunities of citizens of the Uaited States. The inhabitant of a territory merely, has no such rights — he is not a citizen of the United States. He is in a state of disabihty, as it re- spects his political or civil rights. Can it be called a ^h'ightf" to acquire and hold property,and have no voice by which its dispo ;ition is to be reguldtedT Can it be called an ndvantage or immunity of a citizen of the United States to be subjected to a government in whose deliberations he has no share or ager.cy, beyond the mere arbitrary pleasure of the governor? To be ruled by a power irresponsible, to him at least, for its con- dtictl Sir. the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United St.tes, and which are their proudestbo :St, are the rights of self-government, first, in their state constitutions, and, secondly, in the go- vernment of the Union, in which they have an equal participation. It is said, however, by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Hemphill) that they are to be ad- mitted' according to the principles of the federal con- stitution, a.idthat, as by those principles, it is discre- tionary in Congress to admit or not, we are at liberty to act or not. Surely, sir, this argument resembles too nearly a play upon words, to be received by a grave legislative body, prof^rssmg to execute, in good faith, tiie spirit of a ireuy. Such a construction wou-d render the treaty a mere nullity. It is plainly to say, to the people of Missouri, that though we can- not denv that the treaty has stipulated that you shall be admitted, yet that we shall take the liberty of exe- cuting the contract or not, as we please. There is, first, a definite and distinct stipulation," that the m^ 13 habitants shall be incorporated m the Union of the United States; ai'dthen follows tlie subsequent clause of the article, clearly explanatory of the nature of the *' i'lcorpor'aion," to wit: **and admitted as soon aspoS' sibky accordi! g to the principles of tht federal con- stitution, to the enjoymer t of all the rights, advanta- ges, and imrnunides of citizens of the United States.*' In chis is included as positive an enp-agcment, that Congress shall exercise their power to admit these Inhabitants into the Union, p.s there is in the other ar- ticles of the treuty,that Corgr.-ss ^ihall pass the neces- sary laws for carrying their respective provisions in- to effect. The words '* accordi:.g to the principles of the federal constitution,*' obviously apply to the extent of the population, or the obhgatior.s incurred in vir- tue of tue admission. This is most manifest from the provision, that they shall be ad mi' ted " as soon as pos- sible," accordmgto the principles of the federal con- stitution. If it had been designed to Kave the mat- ter discretionary, it would hnv-. bee' useless to pro- vide for thei- admission *' as soon as pvF'ilble.-' If the provision had been, that they should be admitted as soan as their numbers : hall a.i.ount to 40,000, there would hv^vebeenno doubt; the actual provision is not less explicit It makes it obhgatory upon Congress to admit them as soon as they have the power to ad- mit them under the constitution. They have this power as soon as the popuh^tion is sufficiently nume- rous, according to the estabiishnd ratio of representa- tion, to entitle the state to oi'e representative. Si:, this clause is entirely in favor of the rights of the inh biti.nts, arni restrictive of the powers of (Con- gress. Its object was not merely to secure their in- corporation in the Union, m ich might have been liable to some embarrassment, but also to secure to them that incorp^'ration, and thc^ ree enjoyment of all the rights, advanlaues, and immunities of citizens of the United Stages, according to the principles of the federal constitution. Such, sir, I insist is the true exposition of this trea- ty, a treaty adopted by Congress, with a full kn':wledge of such exposition, which has been uniformly giv- cti to it by every act of the government, since its ra- 2 u tiQcation. As I deem the true import of the treaty of much importance in ihis argument, I must bej^ your permission to refer, with some parlicularity, to the acts of the government in this respect. One principal point of difference between the two great parties by which the people of this country were originally divided, was in regard to the force and effect of the treaty making power. Mr. Jefferson, who was at the he id of the administration when the treaty of 1803 w-^s concluded, entertaining the opinion, that it was not binding upon Congress until it received their approbation, submitted it to them, and recommended the passing of the necessary laws to carry it into effect. The party at that day opposed to Mr. Jefferson's administration pronounced the trea- ty unconstitutional, because it stipulated to admit states into the union, carved out of a territory which formed no part of the old Thirteen States. They did not deny the force of a treaty containing engagements in regard to the powers of Congress, but ssid that no department oi ih^ general government had power to make new states out of new territory. Tke third article of the treaty of which I have been speaking, was the objectionable clause, and both parties con- curred in ascribing to it the same construction for which I now contend. On that occasion, Mr. Gris- wold, of Connecticut, and one of the liblest end most distinguished iit; tesmen of whom this country can boast, when speaking of the just inrerpretation of this third article, said, '* It is perhaps somewhat difficult to ascertain the precise effect which it was intended to give the words which have been used in this stipu- lation. It is however clear, tlf»4 it wis intended to incorporate the inhabitants of the ceded territory into the Union, by the treaty itself ^ or to pledge the faith of the nation, that such an incorpf>ration should take place within a reasonable time " The Hon. Mr. Tracy, of the Senate, upon the same occasion, and in reference to the same article, also expressed himself in the followinLj terms — " The obvious meaning of this article is, that the inhabitants of Louisiana are incorp rated by it into the Union upon the same foot- ing that the territorial governments are, and the ten i- 15 tory when the population is sujffidently numerous mnst' he admitted as a state, ivith every right of any other state.** Mr. Pickering went even farihtr and said, '' If, in respect to the Louisiana treaty, the United States fail to execute, and, within a reascn^ble time, the engagement in the third article, to incorporate the territory in the Union, the French government will have a right to declare the whole treaty void." I'his construciian v/as acq'jicsccd in by the opposite side, who contended that the power to admit new st'-tes was not confined to the old territory, and, that as the treaty was now submitted for the approbation of Congress, they had only to determine wh; ther it was expedient to adopt it with this provision. After the utmost de- liberation, and wiih a full understanding of the clear import of this third article, Congress determined to adopt the treaty. They accepted the territory, and passed the necessary laws for carrying it into full ef- fect. They made it their own act. They subsequently divided it into two territorial governments, and made no a'tempt to prevent the existence of slavery in ei- ther; they sold the land, and invited emigrants to go thither from other parts of the United States, und buy and settle, but did not prohibit them from carrying rheir sl-vves with them.— Thtty sold the land and put the money in the public treasury. As soon as the population of that part of the territory called, un- der the division, Louisiana, became sufficiently nu- merous. Congress admitted it into the. Union, as a state, upon the same footing with the origin il states': no a; terr>pt was uade to insist upon a res.riction simi" lar 1.0 the present, or to impose any other condition against their consent, which in any manner affected the rights of the people, in the exercise of their sove- reign pewer. The provisions to which Congress re- quired t e p ople of Louisiana then to submit, will be found, with one exception, to be such aswere prescri- bed by the constitution of the United States, and to whi' h they w uld have been subjected, though they had t!ot put them into their constitviition. Their enu- n)eraiion in the law was wholly a matter of caution. Or, that occasion, a5so. the people fo/!MUernmcnt, all ihf^ sovereignty is in the peopk — Ihey are the fountain \vh:fi.ce it ^11 flows, and the ge- neral govern'i'ent has no power than w1i-t the pe' pie h "^e delegated to it ior federal purposes. 1 hese are the rights asserted in the declaration cf independence.; they ar'- those for which our fathers contended with Great J3iitai , and, wherever m n isf urir^ he is found in ihe po-jsession of them. la the esiablishtn. nt of the public duthority, a greater or less portion of power may be deltgat^d by the people, by voluntary enj^age- ments; but, whatever may be the power deleg-ated the sovereignly is not i »,paired, sir.ceit was by th: ir will, and may be recalled or modified by the same will, when thv ends and objects of their association require it; all governments are instituted for the protection of this right in the people Befo'e the f 'riTiaticn of the Union, the pe pie of each "tate were sovereign and ind. pendent; ihev had exercised their sovereignty in the formation cf state Cf.nstituiions a^ d govern- ments; they not only refained all power not given to th se governments by their constitutions, butthty pos- sessed the right and po^-'er of altering and changing their constitutions at will In virtue cf this sovereign power, the people of the old stales consented to form ft 2* Is compact of Union, for their mutual safety ani eqiality of rights, and they consented to vtst, in the government of the Union, certain powers, the better t guarantee to the people the enjoyment ot the remainder. The powers of the gancral government are ihertfore limit- ed, and all the power not delegated remt^ins with he, states, as far as their constiruticns give it, and with the people. In allother respects, the states and the peo- ple are as completely sovereign as they were btforo the union It will not be pretended that h^ people have ever surrendered their right to alter as.d change their state constitutioRs, and to make any provision not inconsistent with the constitution of the United States. It follows, then, from these principles, that a state is a body of men utiited together for their com- mon interest; the term imports sovereignty, and, in our Union, it imports that portion of sovereignty which has not been given to the general government, and which resid'is with the people. When we speak, the efore, of admitting a state into the Union, we can mean no- thing more, than the admission rf a ecmmunity of people in whom the sovereii-n powc r resides, into ano- ther community of states, by which they voluntaiily agree to refiain from the exercise of a certain por- tion of their power, whenever it is incompatible with the powers of the Union; in every other respect, their power remaiss as it did before their admission. The admission of a state cannot enlarge the powers of Ihe Union, though it may limit the •exeicist- of th© sovereignty in the state The power exerted by ihe general government are in virtue of the authority vested in it by the constitution, while the powers t x- crted by the state governm^nt5, are in virtue of the sovereign power in the people The interference o-f Congress can neither change the orij^inal compact of the Union, nor abridge the rig^hts of the people The moment a new state is admitted, the pe' pie advance to the enjoyment tfthe federal rights, and the geiieral government to the exercise of the federal powers, not ii consequence of any new compact, buf in virtue of the old compi ct in the constitution of the Uni ed St tes, to which the prople of the new state voluntari* fy submit und be«ome parties, when they are admiUe^^ Id mto the Union. The general g:overrment cannot al- ter this coiiSiitution, th y c. n o ly exercise tlu p? w- crs Cf'nft;rred by it. 1 he v cannot, thfr^.fore. clip^i\e the people of a ntw st te of ny fcder I right, v I ich, in relation to rh m, does not tx^st until their fcimis- sion into the Uni n — th f deral ri^-hts of tl..' people, and the pfweri «'f ConLr<-ss, spring ?ntn t^xisttnce to- gether. The p wers ofCongre'^s are V/holl;. indepen- defit of the nature or nrovisirrs (f ?he state crrstitu- tion, whatever that consti* ution rr<; y be; they have aa uncotMroled sway within their federal sphere. and| th rtfore, no new compact can b^- necessary to iheir operation. If, then, Conj^ress can exercise no f-de- Fal power until the state is admitted, and if upon that ad«r»ission they can neither abridge nor augment the federal rij.'his, by what authority can they i terfere with municipal rights which f rm no part of he con- stitution Dftht- United States, but reside in the people? It cinnot be reas. nably contended that the general go- verr ment can form a state constitution — if the\ can- Botform it in the whole, they •aim-^t form ir in part. H w ca 'hey mf-.k a constitution frrasiate, ♦^hen they could nnt make their own, and cannot alter it now that it hits been made by the people and states? If ihc general g- vernment caE conf«ir no municipal ri his, it is b. cause they neither possess any n or have th.. power lo control them, ar:overn!? ent extends to the connections, i ter- course, and com'- erce of the republic with foreign states and oati.ns, and with each other as sovereign independent states. But thry coursr' of affairs, concerns *he iii't'Sf liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement; and prosperity vi th.^ state." Judge Tucker, also, in anoih'tr part of his commen- tary, on that clause of theconsiitution reserving to the slates an i the p<.op'e all power not dtlegrtled, s-ys, ♦'The Congress of th. United States possess no power to regulate, or interfere with the dume^tic concerns erjioiice of any states itbelongs not to ihem to csta« 21 Wish any rules respecting the rights of property.^ Tuck. Black, p. 315. If 'hen Congress possess no mutiicipal powers — no power to interfere in the local concerns of a state, or to establish rules respecting the rights of property, by what mode of reasoning can they acquire any such power gainst the consent of those froii; whom it is to be wrested, or in any manner if terfere with its ex- ercise by the legitimate authority? If Missouri were admitted as a state, no such power cruld be exercised by the general government; they are then attempting to force the people of a state to give them a power which the constitution of the United States denies to thi ml If then Congress can exercise no municipal power, the right to do so resides with the people; and when they come to form a constitution, they exert it in the manner most conducive to their happiness. Con- gress en do no more than authorize the people to exert the power which is thus inherent in them. There is a manifest distinctii n between the existence of a right, and the exercise of that right. The right may remain dormant for any length of tinr e, and t-o it does wiih the people of the Territory, until the per- mission of the general government is given; then it is, the right becomes active; but it is still the right of the people, and not of Congress. It is the sovereign power; which consists in the right to establish a pub- ic authority to order and direct the local affairs in re- lation to the end of the association. Ihis authority includes their executive, legislative, and judiciary, de- partments; the rights of life, liberty, and property; Vhe course in which property m:.y be transnnitted, the manner in which drbis may be recovered, th^ right of defining and punishing offences agairst society, and the establishment and regulation of all the dcmestic relations — husband and wite, parent and child, guar- dian and ward, master ard servant. Could Congress, in authorizing a people to form a constitution, cc.ntrol any of these regulations, or modify either of the above relations? Could we prescribe the term cf of- fice of the executive, or the mode cf selecting or ap- pointing the legislature or judiciary? Could we say ^2 that property should not descend to all the children -^ equally, oi not be deviseable by will? Could we define the ^' arital rights, or establish certain relation, be- tween parent an.i child, guardian and ward, or nnaster and servant? No one can pretend that we could; a?^d for the plain reason, that they are objects of municipal power, i>f which ws are eniirely destitute. 1 he re- lation of master and slave is but a domestic relation; involving the right of property, and every legdl con- sequ'^nce of such a relation. There are no rights growing out of the relation of master p.nd servant, that do not attach t • that of mascer and slave, excepting that »he master may have greater power, and the slave fewer rights; but the rights of the master are, never- theless, rights of property, and his obligations are, to to use the property in conformity wi'h the laws and municipal regulations of the state of which he is a member. It is a domestic relation in ever; state of the Union in which it exists, and the subject of their municipal power. I shall noc stop to enquire into the .moral nature of this relation, or the right of sovereign power to toler te it, thou5i;h I think it is ap. arent, that the power to hold a man in slavery is the hi.^hest exercise of sovereignty; it is sufficient for this argu- ment, that it was a subsisting relation in these states; that the constitution of the United States found it ex- isting, recognized it as the subject of property^ cog- nizable by the municipal jurisdiction of the state, and stipulated to guarantee both the property and the ju- risdiction. The Union itself is composed of states, and the Constitution formed by people, tolerating slavery, and holding their slaves as subjects of property; and it never could have been their design to establish an au- thority competent to subvert this property. The gene- ral government have rtcoirnizvd this relation as ihe subject of property, by accepting the transfer rf terri- tory from Norih Carolina, with n express «^tipul tion that Congress sho-oM ; ot even inhibit the tokrAri: n of slavtry within it, while it emcisicd un 'er a territoiial form of governnient. Tht^ constitution also rtcog- nizes !.he riglit of property in slaves, bv providing for their enumeration in the ratio of representation, atvM <6 O fey constituting them t"he objecf.s of taxation i a recur^ renc • to the 54th number of she Federalist will shew that this article was founded chi^fly on the idea that slaves were property. It is there said expressly that " slaves are considered as property."' It further recog- mzes property in the slave, ai^d also the authority of the municipal jurisdiction, in lea* ing the rcRuia ion of the Jitates in this respect undi£turbi-,d, under which they are bought and sold, for paymtnt of debts., as property, pass to executors and administrators is pro- per?;y, and its free enjcyj'ment protect- d in the samem n- ner as any other species . f prooert}. Eut, v.ir, the con- stitution nor only recog ized property in slaves hsld at the time of its adoption, but it i^uuranteed the right of the people of the United States to import them from abroad for the period of twenty years. It not only reirained from disturbinp- the property existing, or with its natural increase, bnt it encouraged an ac- cession to its numb rs ihrou!
  • 'er, therefore, in Congress over tne slaves legii" ately brought here, is a protecting power for the beciefit of the owner, 24 and a protecting power merely against the conflicting policy of state reguiations, of which it is the pec.'liar object But the instant it is admitted to be p»optriy, it becomes the subject of municipal authority only, and is invested with all the rights and dis?4bilities of pro- perty. It Would be very difficult to as-ign a reason why ^h' rights of the owner in this, mor thun i; any other species of property, could be affected Aud jet it is directly invaded by this anirndmeiit. It first propo-*es to set fee the issue of all th? slaved now in Missouri, in -he face of the treaty which stipu- lates h^t the mh vbiiaits shall be protected in 'he free enjoyment of th^^ir property; and it furiht r inter- feres with the cuizen ©f a-> ther state, in the use of the very prop-rty which rhe constitution permitted hi n to acquire, an^f stipu ated to project, or, at least, not to destroy. If his restriction be not imposed, the citizen of the south would be permitted to remove to Missouri, and take hts sbves with him, providefi the mun'cipal laws of that people did not prohibit him. But as the Congress cannot destroy this right by a di- rect law, they propose to do it by an indirect assump- tion of power, in which is involved, not merely an usurpation of the rights of the people of Missouri, but a violation of the guaranttre to the rest of the states! We have been referred, h>wever, to the declaration of independence, .^s declaratory of the principles of ihe constitution in Uiis respect. I should scarcely h.ve deemed this topic worthy of an answer, but for the confidence with wh ch it has beii reiterated in this debate. If the absuact principles, contained in ihis mtmorable paper, could possibly be supposed to have at.y i-effrence to the condition of ihe black popuktion in the UiMted States; yet as it preceded the adoption of the constitution, their practical effect mast depend al- together upon the positive provisions ofihat charter. But the trulh Is, si.= , that the decla ation of indepen- dence, had no reference to those persons who were, at that time, held in slavery It was pronounced by the freemen of the country, and :\ot b^ sliivts :No one preterded that they acquired any claim to freedom on this account; on the contrary, th revolution found them in a state of servitude, the acknowledgment of 25 our actual independence left them so, and the consti- tutionofihe United States perpetuattd the^r condition. The declaration of independence was the act ot open resistance on the part of the white freemen of the colo- nies, acainst the pretensions of the n.othttr country, to eovern them without thdr consent; to assert their unalienable right of self government, and to alter or abolish it whenever it should be necessary to cttect their safety and happiness It was the resistarcc ut freemen to the assumption of a power on -he part -t Great Britain, preciseU sinnilar to that wh>ch we are nowe.'deavaring to'impose upon the people if Missouri. It expressly asserts the prircipl^s that »^ all jtist pow- ers of government ^re derived from the consent cf he governed; and the right of the people to alter or abolish, nd institute it anew, as to them shall seem ^most likely to effect thtrir safety and hAppi^ess.' 1 do rot deny that the principles cf ihc declaration of inde- pendence ar e those ol the constitution; on the contra- ry, I admit that they are those upon which all our insti- tutions repose; they ^re those upo:- which the people of Missouri claim the right, to make their own ccnsti u- tion, and resist the imposition of an? species of go- vernment, deriving its powers from any ether source. But I contend that it never designed to ussu e or as- sert anv principle whrtsoevcr. in regard to the slave population of the United States, and, therefore, that it ca-notbe used in this dcbatr, either as decl ratory of their rights, or explanatory .f h; principles of the constitution and govcr ment n th::if bfihalf. It is un- reasonable to assert the contrarv> when e*'ery one knows, {hat while thti freemen ^ f this country were openly resisting the usurpaions of the British Crown, they did not relax, in the sli h est degree, their hold upon the negro slave; and, to him, it v/as a .natter of entire uvconcern. who should 9;overn his masttr, as, in 11 conditiuns^ his master would coi)ti.»ue to govern him I do not advoca e the c insistency of all this; I take things as I find th m under our form of guvern- me-^.t, though when we throw our ere towards t. Do- mingo, and reflect upon the scene? which ensued he heedless enth'siasni whu.h charac c; 'z d the i're'ch rcYoluiioii, Wv cannot fail to admire the cautious wis- S 26 dom of our ancestors, in not hazarding the great object of their struggle, by suddenly letting loose their un- fortunate, though degraded slave populatien. Besides, sir, the principles of the declaration of independence would not be satisfied by merely loosening the shac- kles of the slaves; they would assert, not only the rights of a freeman, but an equality of those rights, ci- vil and political. And where is the sta^e in the Union, in which the emacipated negro has been admitted to theenjoyment of equal rights wih the white popula- tion! I know of none. In some, to be sure, iheir rights Tncy be greater than in others, but in none, I believe, are they upon an equality. In c iu»u.>CC tttcirr part of the contract, you hive enjoyed all the rights and advantages secured ^o you under it, and they come now and demand the performance of your part. What is the language you employ? You say, it is true we hav made this contract with you, but it turns out to be, in the view of a part of the country, a hard bar- gain; it secures to |OU more righ's, and Hows us less discretion, than we are willing to submit to, and unless you will nrw consent t; change its terms, and enter into 8. new c mpact, by which you arc to have fewer rights than the citize^.s of any other state, we will vi- olate our faith 1 We have agreed to admit you s a state, but, unless you consent to be less th n a state, wc will do nothing! We will have nothing to say to you unless you will now bind yourselves and your pos' icrity. by an irrevocable ordinance, to let us make your constitution in abridgment of your own rights; which 2^ - shall be unalterable in all future times? Sir, as between individuals, such a case wouM require only to be stat- ed, to expose hi fallacy and injustice; and I can ac- kuowledge no difft rent principles between states, more especially, where your want of kOo<1 i^Axh infuses the spirit of jealousy into the minds of ycur citizens, and weakens the ereat rock of c->rfidei ce in your justice^ upon which the power of this UaiuR reposesl But the ordinance of ttighty seven hus been referred to, and confidei^tly relied upon, by the honorable gen- titman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hemphill) -^s illustra- tive of his idea of compact, and the powers of Con- f;ress in this respect. The cases re entirely dissi- milar. I shall not detain you, Mr. Chairman, with a repetition of the arguments so often urged, with great ability and with much success, against the legality of this ordinance; I shall content myself with^'shewing its inapplicability, in fact or prmciple, to the csise now under our consideration. We have now nothing to do either with the principles of that ordinance or the au- thority by which it was estabhshed -he people of Missouri do nut claim to be admitted cc rdmg to the principles of either; but they demand admis-sion ac- cording to the terras of the treaty and the principles of the present constitution This ordinance was the act of the old confederation; and whatever power they may have had to acquire the ceded territory, it is admitfe th^^ hono- rable T.o?er, upC'U the claustt in the constitution, vest- ing in Coigre^s a power to disp >se of and make U needful rules an i regulations respecting the territory or other property belongi i^ to the United States. I do not pr^»pose to enter, minutely, into thf^ inquiry, whether the power of Congress to establish a territo- rial government is derived from this clause. I incline to the opinion t^na;. ii is not. The p Wcr, h- re outer- red, is a power to d sp.>s.'? of and mdke n^^edful rules respite' in9:*he property of the United States. It was de-igned, I think, to authorize the sale of the lai»d for purposes of revenue, and ill regulations which might be deemed necessavy for its proper disposition; or to convert it to otner public objects disconnected with sale or revenue; to retain this power, even after the territory had assumed a stale government, and perhaps to divest from the state government the right of taxing it, as it •vQuld do the property of individuals. It is silent as to the people, and their slaves are thcproperty of their owners, and nut of the government. The right to govern a territory is clearly incident to the right of acquiring v It would be absurd to say that any ;^overnment might purc^-asc a territory with a po- pulation, and not ha'/e the power to give them laws; but, from whatever source tht power is derivable, I admit it to be plenary, so long as it remains in a condi- tion of territorial dependence, but no longer. I am willing, at any time, to exercise this power. I regret that it has not been done sooner. But, though Con- gress can give laws to a territory, it cannot prescribe them to a state. The condition of the people of a terri- tory is to be governed by others; of a state to govern thems^ves. This ia the great favor we permit thejn to enjoy when we exalt them to the character of a stati^^ The instant we authorize them to form their constitu- ^on, the territorial disabUitiea, and the powers ofCon- gress over them^ crumble together in the do&t. A Bf w being, and a new relation spring up — the st . te authority, derived from the just powers ol the people, takes its place; evtry feature of the territorial authori- ty become rffaccd. and the federal powers of Congress, encircling a state, commence their operation, if here is nothing of territorial disability on the one hand, er territorial authority on the other, which passes into the new order of things; if they did, the state would be incomplete. But, Mr. Chairman, the honorable mover also relied very confidently on the ninth section of the first article of the constitution, which provides that *' the migration orimportrtionof such persons, as any of the states now existing shall think proper to ad^^it, shall not be prohibited by ConQ;ress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or doty may be imposed on *uch importa- tion, not exceeiiing ten dollars for each person," It is said that this clause invests Congress with the power of prohibiting the removal of slaves from one state of the Union to another; but if it had not been for the se- riobsness and sincerity with which it has been pressed r> *"w 1^2*^*^^^*^^^ M:entleman from Penn. (Mr. Hemp- /iiill) I should have deemed it wortny oi our a very lew remarks. It now deserves a close examination * It is apparent, and indeed is admitted by all, that this clause contains no grant of power, but restricts for a limited period the exercise of an existmg power. And also that the power, whatever it may be, is now the same over (he old as the new states. Unless, there- fore, Congress possess the power, by some other pro- vision in the consiitution, to inhibit the removal of slaves from one state into another; this clause cannot refer to that description of persons, or to that mode of removal. Conceding, for the sake of argument, the full infjport of this clause, I cannot conceive of any * Since this speech was delivered, the hon. Rufus King, in the Senate, frankly disavowed this source of power, as au- thorizing the restrictiorj. It has since been given up by al- ino#t cvefy gentleman who has advocated the restriction. 34 thin? more destitute of weight in this matter. For suppose Congress to possess the power to prohibit the •arrying of slaves from one state into another, it is a power merely of K gisiation, for they have no other than legislative powers. They would be obliged to cxr'ci«'e it by a Iaw, and could do so, as well after the state should be admitted, as before. The power in Congress to legislate upon this subject, con- fers no authority to compel the people of Missouri te put the provision into their constitution; bvit should be exercised whe-ever circumstances required it, with- out r-rftrence to the acts of the stale. Besides, no le- gislative act of this descripiion, could be, in its nature, irrevocable; but here is an expedient to convert a power of legislating in the ordit>ary way, into a consti- tution making power, with the dangerous novelty of making it unalterable! The very attempt to compel the surrender of their rights, in this respect, from the people of Missouri, is in itself conclusive, that gen- tlemen who rely upon this clause, are themselves aware, that eve|i the legislative power does not exist. Nor does it exist sir. The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mro Hemphill, admits that he reu?t find the power in some other part of the constitution, and he says it is con- tained iii the clause authuriain^ C?"oVC:' '• to regu- late commerce among the several states.'* He sup- poses the authority to prevent the importation of slaves from abroad is derived from the power to re- gulate commerce with foreign nations;*' and that, therefore, the authority to prevent the ^'migration of them from one state to another, is derived from the similar power in relation to the intf rnal commerce. But the gentleman must not o'l\ be correct in this position, but he munt additionally shew, that the word "migration", applies to slaves at all, and also to their removal from slate to state, to sustain his argumont. He is correct in neither. The power to prohibit the "importatioo** of slaves from foreign countries, is not derived from the clause to regulate commerce with fo- reic^n -nations. If it were, the p'ohibition Cduld only be made where the slaves were broujcht into the Unit- ed States, in the way of commerce; it would confer n* 35 power to prevent a Canadian, or inhabitant of Flori- da, from nnoving over the line with his fannily and settlinp: on a farm, for agricultural purposes nicrely. I derive the authority frorn a ir.uch more ex ensivc source, from the general unlimited power in ih- f de- ral i^overnmei t tore^iulate all our concerns aidiniei'* ccupse whatsoever with foreign natiot s, 8c piotibi^ the connTmi^ in as well of freemen as slaves f';r any pu ■ pose or in any manner, whenever the ptblic tx'gtnctso? »he country render itadviseable. But, thovpfh the nght of prohibiting; the importation cf slaves f.f.m abroad, should be inferred from the power to regulate com- merce with torei:c',n nations, it does not follow that the right to prevent their removal from state to state, would be derived from the power to regulate com- merce '^among the several states.'* The phraseology of this clause is different — the regulaiior is to be *'amor)g the several states. '* Congress have no r^iht to make ay regulation which applies o»ily to one or two states; it must be general among the whole; all must share the adTanta^es or disadvantac.es cf the re- gulation, whatever they may be. Partial rtgulatir.ns cf commerce was precisely the evil which the power vested in the Congress was intended to guard against. It was easily foreseer, if the commercial intercourse between slate and state, were left to the state authori- ties, (hat, by means of local regul'tions, or improper contributions levied on the transportation of merchan- dize through its territory, any one state might mate- rially interfere with the legitimate comnfterce of an- other; these would naturally lead to counteracting measures by the other state, and, m this manner, ccm- binatii ns and collisions, ruinous 'o the interests cf all, would follow. The prevention cf these evils was the principal object of giving the power to the general go- vernment.* It is a power in a coo mon government, for a common benefit; arid the same regulation mus be applied to all the stales equally. It was intended to secure to the citizens of every state the right of carry rng their merchand'ze when and wheresoever their in- terests dictated, without interruption from the conflict- * See the 42d number of the Federalist. ing views oFany other state; it could never have been the desipjn to prohibit entirely the carrying of mer- chandize from one state, or from any of ihe states, in- to one particular state. Buch an idea is at unce re- pealed by the fifh paragraph of the rinih section of the first article; which provides, that *'n;) preference shall be given, by any regulation of commerce or reve- nue, to the ports of one state over those of another." As connected with this part of the subject, it is \o be remembered, that the power is, to " regulate com- merce," not to abolish or prohibit it altogether. I will not deny, that Congress may, when any public oc- casion requires it, suspend the commercial mtetcourse *among the several states " for a limited time; but I do insist, tha» any law which should prohibit it forever would be unconstitutional. Will any gentlemen con- tend, that Congress have powtr to say that the state of Georgia should never hereafter send rice, which is clearly an article of comm roe, into the state of Mis- souri, or compel the people of the lat er state to a^reei by an irrevocable ordinance, never to admit the arti- cle of rice to be received into her state from any other part of the Union? And if the power to prohibit the removal of slaves depends upon the right to repfulate commerce, it must be because they are arti'^les of commerce; and, therefore, like every other article of a commercial nature. Again, sir, the power to re- gulate commerce, must apply only to an intercourse purely commercial, and to articles used and transport- ed in the way of commerce. All articles of househsld furniture, and implements of agriculture, may be used in the way of commerce, they are so when they are bought and so'd, or carried about for sale, but they cannot be so considered when they are carried by their prrprietor for his own use, when he pleases to remove from one state into another; such a removal would form no part of the commerce a v,ong the states Nor will it, I apprehend, be pretended, that the general go- vernment could, in such a case, prevent the removal; because the constitution secures hii) equ^l privileges in every state; and they would have »s little power to prevent him from taking his proper».y with him, un- der the pretence of regulating 'commerce among the several states." The right of removing necessarily Inclades the right of carrying one's family and property fviih him. Sir, the slave is in no greater degree an ar- ticle of commerce, when his owner, in his transit from one state into another, for agricultural purpose^ takes him, as a part of his properly, to assist in work-' ing his land, than any other member of his family, or any other article of his property. He does not carry him as an article of commerce; there is no buying or selling in the case. This amendn.ent however applies to this as well as the instances of transportation for purposes of sale. But, sir, the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, is obliged to admit, that the term * importation** cannot apply lo intercourse between the states; since a tax or duty ra ly be imposed on sucfe importation, and the constitution expressly provides, that '* no tax or duly shall belaid on articles exported from any state." Now, sir, importation cnay be by la d as well as by water; and you could not, at any pe- riod, eithtr before or af er the year 1808, impose any tax upon the exportation from a state: the gentleman's arerument thtn involves him m this inconsistency that though Congress cannot, at anytime, impose any duty on ariiclts exported from any state, they may prevent their exportation altogether; or that, though you h ve the p; wer to preverit the transportadon cf slaves, from state to state by land, you h -ve no power whatsoever over them if carried by water; or, that, though impor- tation and migration both be means of carrying or commerce, yet. under the general power to regulate that c mmerce, you may abolish one but nut the other! Au>ain, Sir, it has never been denied, that the power in Congress to regulate corK,merce is an exclusive p'W- er— the states ca not exercise it; and, therefore, if the right to prevent the removal of slavf s, from one state to another, is a part of this power, it must of course be exclusive. And yet, sir, we see that all the states havh cons'^antly made Ihtrir own r- gulafions upon this subjtc*:. I have Iready s>hewn you, that the consii- tuti^n jf the Ui'ited States expressly recognizes their right to do so; iuir uniform practice has given a con- tempor neous construction to the instrument, by tx- ■ercising the power ever iince its adoption; and if 9! 4 as contrary doctrine should now prevail, all those shves who have been hitherto declared fi ee, by reason uf a viohtion of any state regulation, are yet slaves, and may be reclaimtd by their ownersl But it is impos- sible that such a doctrine can ever prevail. It appears to me, then, Mr. Chairman, that the right contended for cannot be derived from the power to regulate commerce among the several st tes; and therefore that the power, which was restrained until the year 1808, was that of preventing the migration or importation of persons from foreign countries only» It would be very immaterial, ir- the present argument, whether the word j^ersows related to slaves only, or to freemen as well as slaves; I believe, however, it re- lates to both. In a just interpretation of this clause, we are bound to assign to each word a distinct meaning, to suppose that each had a definite object, and that neither was us- ed unnecessarily. If both ♦* migration*' and " importa- tion*' be applied to slaves, one would be wholly useless. The word " importation" would embrace every possible means by which slaves could be intro- duced into the country against their will, as it would every means by which they could be removed from one state into another. We see, moreover, that, up- on the importation only, the imposition of a tax or du- ty is authorised, and, if slaves can migrate at all, they do so as well when coming hither from a foreign coun- try, as in going from state to state, and it is therefore unreasonable to suppose that while it was the evident policy and intention to prevent their coming in at all, the " importation" only would be obstructed, and their " migration" left free and unrestricted. But, sir, the word ** migration'* cannot apply to the forcible or involuntary removal of a slave from any state, foreign or domestic. It is the voluntary act of a free agent; and a slave has no such wilU and is no such agent; he is subject to the will of a master, by whom all his actions are controlled. It is, moreover, a rights so defined by all the best writers on the sub- ject; it is the right of quitting one's country, and of going into another in the pursuit of wealth and hap- pinessy and> according to the principles of our repubU- S9 can form of government, it is unalienable. But, will it be pretended that the slave has any such right, when we have seen that, in the only instance in which he volMntarily leaves his master's service, he is compelled, in defiance of ail the municipal regulations of other statts,to be reclaimed? No, sir, he has no such right, he never changes his resideRce, but under the compulsion of a power he dare not resist. It is no exercise of a right, when the unhappy slave is taken by his owner from place to place — he obeys a hard fate which he cannot control, and he can, with no more propriety, be said to migrate, than the exile who is driven fromt his family and home, into in voluntary banishment. The term" migration,*' as here used, is also a gene- ral one, and has relation to the government by which it is to be controlled. Its true meaning, is th^ of quit- ting their own country, and of removing biyond the jurisdiction of the government: its nfeaning^Ss precise and technical. Therefore, though a man may change his residence, so long as he remains under the govern- ment of ihe United StateSj he does not migrate, in the sense of the constitution. When a man removes from one county to another of the same state, he cannot be said to have migrated in relation to that state, nor can he be said to migrate in relation to the United States, when he removes from one state to another in the Union. He is still in the same country, still under the same jurisdiction and laws, enjoying equal rights, and liable to the same obligations; he is still a citizen, nay an inhabitant of the United Slates, and the protecting arm of the constitution shields and conducts him wherever he goes; he is not an emigrant, until he has turned his back upon his country, and quitted its juris- diction. But, Mr. Chairman, if the words, as used, be in any degree ambiguous, we are bound to consider the cir- cumstances under which the constitution was adopted, and the object which was to be effected by the restrictive clause. It is clear that the general government pos- sessed the power, under the constitution, to restrict the " importation" of slaves from abroad, either as inci- dent to their general powers, or to the particular pow- er to regulate commerce with foreign nations* It is? 40 in my opinion, equally clear, that they also possessed the power of prohibiting the mip:ration of foreign free- men, under particular circumstances. It has been al- ready shewn that all our intercourse with foreign na- tions is peculiarly under the control of the general go- ve^ment, to which the right of rcgulatincr or prevent- lng»foreign emigration is necessarily incident; if it were otherwise, any single state, by opening its ports to foreign emigration, might let in a population to any ex^ent, and against the evident policy and interests of all the others. At the adoption of the constitution, however, the states being in their infancy, it was their policy to encourage emigration from abroad, and, as its interruption had bee^one of the causes of complaint against the^British government, it was natural that the powers of the federal government should be placed under some restraint in this respect. The year 1808, was, I imagine, agreed upon, in consequence of the compromise upon the other point. A consideration of the object of the compromise will leave no room for doubt. It related to the increase of population, either of freemen or slaves, from abroad. The constitutioii had provided, that three-fifths of the slave population should be enumerated in the ratio cf representation, which would have been constantly augmenting, by the importation from abroad, beyond the natural increase of this species of population, and it became, therefore, a matter of compromise, upon the mere poini of time, for which the importation should be tolerated. But this concession could not have been made without a similar license to the emigration of free persona in fa- vor of the northern and non-slave holding states, and thus the affair was adjusted by allowing the same pe- riod to each. The essence of this compromise being entirely an affair of time, leaves no doubt as to its meaning. It was to prevent the premature ascendan- cy in the south, by an undue increase of this popula- tion, an object which would have been as effectually promoted by the dispersion of the slaves among the other states, as by inhib ting their introduction from abroad, for, in case of their diffusion, the north would acquire their share of the numbers, and so the repre- sentation would be equalized. 41 *■ That this clause had ro sort of reference io a powey to prever;t the removal of slaves f» cm siate to sta'e is fur;htr tivident, fmrn the importarit corsideration that, previous to the adoptio of the constiiution, each state its< if possessed the undoubted authority to pr* hibiithe bring ng in of slaves irom any ether state. It is, there- fore extremely imprcbable that, with ail the jealousy and hos'ility of the northern stales upon this subject, they should have called in the aid of the general go- vernment to accomplish what they could do without it, and thus weaken their own powen by confiding it to councils who hau an interest in encouraging what they desirtd to abolish. It is inDpossible, sir, to resist this construction, when, in aid of it, are arrayed the acts and practice of all the states, from the establishment of the general government up to the present day. Sir, it is a power which can be safely exetted only by the individual states themselves; they never did. and never ought, to surrender it; they nevtr will, and never ought, to submit to its exercise by the general go- vernment. JNIr. Chairman, having consumed so much of the time of the committee in the constitutional question, I have not the power, if I possessed the inclination, to enter into a consideration of the expediency of this amendment. It is sufficient for me to know, that the constitution forbids me to adopt it, though I am free to acknowledge that the establishment of a prece- dent for interfering^ in the formation cf state constitu- tions is of a veiy dangerous character. But, surely, sir, our rii^ht ought to be very clear before we pursue it in a case like the present. It involves consequences cf too serious a nature to be hazarded upon a doubtful power. It is worse than an attempt to legislate in a case in which your power was ambiguous, and in which your authority could be examined, and sustained, or overruled by the judicial tribunals of the nation, which are the common arbiters of us all. It forces an odious measure upon an unwilling people, in a form which leaves them no redress in any pacific course. If they do not tamely submit to the restriction, you must either ignominiously abandon, or impose it by force I Impose it, sir ?— No \ But make the hazardous^ 42 attempt to enforce its imposition ! I will not enume- rate the eff<^cts of such a conflict: I pray Heaven it may never happen, but I will say, that, in my opinion, the object is not worth the conflict. Sir, I invite gentlemen to look at the present state of the public cou'^cils, and consider whether they do not hazard their whole object by persisting in a measure so repugnant to the ardent feelings of at least one moiety of this empire, and so much opposed to the constitutional views of many of the friends of the avowed policy. It is a consideration to which a states- man is bound to look: if actuated by motives of huma- nity and the public peace, he would be criminal to dis- regard it. We see it ascertained beyond doubt that the Senate will not consent to this restric!i©n, and that, if we persist in it, they will not unite even in any territorial regulation. The introduction of slaves in- to the western country will remain free. Those who desire to send this property there for sale will be sti- mulated to do so without delay; the market there will rise in apprehension of the future acts of I'ongress: dealers and settlers will take advantage of it; and thus slavery will become too deeply rooted to yield to any means of extirpation which future councils may em- ploy. In the mean time, too, public excitement in- creases; evil men seize upon the occasion to promote their designs; local prejudices spring up; and a spirit ol jealousy and discord is roused in all parts cf the country, which they who engender will be wholly un- able to allay or direct. But if, consulting the present state of things, gentlemen will yield something to a spirit of harmony and mutual interests, we may now put this unpleasant subject to ileep forever. The people of Missouri will enter the Union with their rights unimpaired, and their feelings undisturbed, dc- ▼oted to your institutions, and inspired with full con- fidence in your justice and generosity; the territorial soil will then be unpolluted with slavery. Its intro- duction in regard to that being prohibited, much the largest portion of the western world will be peopled by a population unfriendly to slavery, and when they come to frame their state constitutions, preparatory to their future admission into the Union, they will volunturilj 49 form them in conformity wi^h their habits and prin- ciples; for I desire to be understood as denying the authority of Con.Tess to make any regulation for a territory, wh ch can be binding upon tht people against their consent, when they come to make their coKsiitu- tion, and after their admission into the Union. I sanc- tify no irrevocable ordinances. But their territorial regulations will accomplish the object by creating a population whose interests it will be voluntarily to adopt the restriction In this wav, too Missouri will be seated in the mids of rion slave-holding states, and the force of public sentiment will soon lead to the emancipation of her present slave population. For the accomplishment of all these objf^cts, gertlemen are called upon merely to abs ain from the assumption of a doubtful power over a resisting peoplel Mr. Chairman, the union of these states is the pro- duction ot the sp rit of harmoi y and compromise. Di/ we remember hew much our fathers surrendered to compose, and shall we refuse t ' surrender any thing to preserve it ? It was founded in common confidence, and for common benefits; it must be cherished by a common affection and forbearance, or it will scarcely survive the hands which planted it. The founders of this Union had their own advantage and the welfare •f their children to recommend its adoption; we have our interests, the welfare of our posterity, and the duty we owe to those who transmitted it to us, to perpe« tuate its blessi.gs. Shall it be said,thHt we will not sa- crifice one prejudice on the altar of the Union, for its preservation, whes they offered up thousat ds to rear it? Theg not only tolerated the existing slavery, but, in the spirit of mutual compromise, consented to its augmentation from abroad for twenty years! We arc only required to leave undisturbed that which they en- tailed upon us: nay, sir, we are merely required to ab- stain from cncrot'ching upon the rights of the people, ind,in doing s. 44 t^ow on your shores; it neither casts off his fetters, nor iii^htens his burthen. Pass this restriction, and his chains are rivetted as ti^ht as ever; his doom is fixed as irrevocably, nay, more so thar before. It may serve, however, Mr. Chairman, to foment political ca- bals, and promote the unhallowed views of the ambi- tious and designing. I do not say that such v/as its ob- ject in its origin; I am sure it was not; and i do not be- lieve there is any gentleman on this floor who could be the tool in such an intrigue. But m- y there not be men out of this House, who would avail themselves of such a state of public excitement, to accomplish the possession of power? Sir, may there not bs men out of this House, who are now adding to the impetus which this subject has received for such a purpose ? Gentle- men will remember, that the objects of an ambitious man are gcner lly more than half accomplished, before he is willing to avow them. I will not say that there are such, but I will saf, if there are, they are unworthy of ar y public trust in this nation. Nor, sir will they have much reason tu rejoice in their triumph, ^ should they be successful. No political power can be perma- nent, in this country, wai h shall be f unded o^ocal jealousy, and g -ographical distinctions. Public ho- nors, to be durable, must be won by public services, and distinguished merit; they must be sought through the aHeoiionate confidence of a virtuous and intelligent community; they must be the offspring of public gra- titude for pi-blic worth. Power acquired m any other way, will not be worth possessing: he who acquires it t)V these divisions and distinctions, will not lie upon a bed of roses; his honors w 11 be worn b) a fretful, if not a criminal b- '>w, and, in the midst of a discontent- ed and distracted empire. He will come to the coun- cils of a peojile disordered by intestine feuds, with feel- ings embittered by the recollection of domestic strife: his triumph would be as evanescent ^a uncomfortiible, I repeat it, sir, thU it will be well for gentlemen to consider whether h-^re are not mt-n who wili not t-ke adva-'tave of 'he present agi«ation, tu erge der all this mischief. Sir, if there should be one such it is our duty to d^feat his machinations; he is unvvor'hy our conhdence; sir, he sets a cormorant in the tree of life, *« devising death To them who live." ——. f V ^'. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 011 899 327 5