(•I f/YALE SLAVERY EXTENSION AND PROTECTION— ITS TENDENCIES AND DANGERS. SPEECH OF IN a OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. Delivered in the Senate of the United States, February 20, 1880. Mr. CLARK. Here, Mr. President, is a series of six resolutions presented by the Senator from Mississippi. There are irany things in them in which I do not entirely concur; there are some things in them from which I entirely dissent ; but I propose, at this time, to confine myself entirely, or almost en tire]}-, to the fourth resolution of the series. It is this : " Resolved, That neither Congress nor a Terri torial Legislature, whether by direct legislation or legislation of an indirect and unfriendly na ture, possess the power to annul or impair the constitutional right of any citizen, of the United States to take hi3 sl*ve property into the com mon territories - but it is the duty of the Federal Government there to afford, for that as- for other specie* of property, the needful protection; and, if experience should at any time prove that the judiciary does not possess power to insure ade quate protection, it will then become- the duty of Congress to supply such deficiency." This resolution, Mr. President, is bold and aggressive in its character ; it is alarming.' Tt calls for a species of legislation entirely new in the history of the-legislation of this Government; and i at variance- with its past policy. -But, I before- I proceed to discuss- the- resolu tion, I want to-call the attention of ,the Senate to an extract from a speech made by -Hon. John C. Breckinridge, Sen ator elect from Kentucky, at Frankfort, in that State, on the 21st of December, 1859 : "In this- connection, I do not hesitate to say that the aim of every good citizen should be to keep the question of slavery out of Congress. Its agitation there ha3 been productive only of evil to us, and that continually. In the present condition of public affairs, I can see no motiva te thrust the Territorial question on the Congres sional arena, that ha3 its origin in a feeling of loyalty to the Union. At present, the slavery question, in thi3 aspect of it, is not before Con gress. No Southern Senator or Reprpzmlaiive pro~ ponen legUlation >ipon it. No complaint of violated rights comes from any Territory. No evidence is offered that the Constitution, the law3, and the court3, are not competent to protect personal right and private property. Hence, while I wonld never abandon a constitutional right, especially after it had been judicially determined, I never would prematurely raise any question to dis tract the country, when no voice demands it, North, South, East; or West.'' I have read this' extract; not to blame the honorable Senator from Mississippi; [Mr. Davis] for introducing these reso lutions, nor to blame the other Senator' from Mississippi [Mr. Brown] for in troducing certain resolutions which he presented, nor to blame any Senator for introducing any resolution ; nor do I do it to put the honorable Mr. Brechin-' ridge in the position of blaming those Senators, when he said that no SoutkT ern Senator asks for legislation on the subject of slavery in the Territories. That is not my object. I do it for the purpose of calling the attention of the Senate to what I call the modern history of slavery agitation in this countiy, going back for toe last ten years, and for tho purpose of correcting what 1 think is an erroneous impression, that the Northern people, and especially the Republican- party, are responsible for the agitation of the slavery question in Congress. I ask the attention of the Senate and of Senators to the position of affairs now, and to the progress of affairs since 1850, the time when the compromise measures were introduced into Congress. At that time Mr. Web ster said, in a speech which he made on the 7th of March, 1850, that the ques tion of slavery was settled in every foot of the territory that then belonged to the United States. This is his lan guage : "And I now say, sir. as the proposition upon which I stand this day, and upon the truth and firmness of which I intend to act until it is over thrown, that there is not, -at this moment, within the United States, or any Territory of the Uni ted States, a. single foot of land, the character of which, in regard to its being free-soil terri tory or slave territory, is not fixed by some law, and some irrepealable law, beyond the power of the action of this Government." — ConyrestiDnul Glotut, Thrrhj-firat Congress, first se&rion, p7irl £ vol 21,^.479. To this proposition of Mr. Webster, both the Democratic and Whig parties agreed. But if every foot of the territory of the United States was then fixed by an irrepealable law, as regards its being free territory or slave territory, what has been the necessity of any a'gitation of the question of slavery in Congress in regard to the Territories, since that time I What did you do, sir, aud what has been done ] I speak now of the Democratic party. In 1852, in the Convention of the Democratic party, it wa3 resolved that slavery agitation should be kept out of Congress ; and yet, in the year 1854, wheiTthcy came into Congress, the Democratic party commenced agitation, by the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and threw the whole country into commotion on that subject. I may say that the Republi can party is the child of slavery agita tion in Congress ; it was brought into existence by the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and the repeal of the Mis souri compromise was carried through, advocated, and perfected, by the action of the Democratic party in Congress. What was next done? In 1856, the same Democratic party, meeting in Con vention, by its delegates at Cincinnati, resolved the same thing over again, that- there should be no more agitation on the subject of slavery in Congress. Here is the resolution : " That the Democratic party will resist ali at tempts at renewiug, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under. what ever shape or color the attempt may be made." " That was in 185G. In 1850, you re solved that you would have no agitation. In 1852, you resolved that you would have no agitation. In 1854, you had agitation, aud repealed the Missouri compromise ; and in 185<:i, you resolved again that you would have no agitation ; and in 1857, and the first part of 1858, you brought in your Lecomptou Consti tution, obtained over the people of Kan sas by fraud and oppression, and you b^gan to agitate again ; in 1858, you brought in your Cuba question, and be gan to agitate again ; and then, in 1859, you brought in your resolution of investi gation ; now you bring in these resolu tions ; and so you agitate from year to year, whtle from year to year you re solve that you will not agitate. The Democratic party put forth 'in their res olutions that they will not agitate the question of slavery ; yet, here, from month to month, from session to ses sion, they are continually bringing for ward measures for its agitation ; and these resolutions are here, not from the Democratic party as a party, to be sure but from members of the Democratic party. I find no fault with their action ; I only design to show what has been the course of the Democratic party on this subject, and that the Republican party is not to blame or responsible for the agitation. Mr. President, I have observed one thing in the history of this slavery agita tion : that whenever the Democrats, by their delegates, go- into a Convention on the eve of a Presidential election, they say they will have no agitation ; but when that occasion is past, and they come into Congress, they are the very people to agitate the question. I do not know now but that, when the delegates of the Democratic party go down to Charleston this year, they will again re solve that there shall be no agitation. Most probably they will ; and when they return here, these questions will be renewed and carried forward. But to return to the resolution. I said this resolution was bold and ag gressive. I said it was alarming. I said that it sought for legislation so much at variance with the history and policy of the Government in regard to the Terri tories, that it should command the at tention of the country. When you pro posed to establish the Missouri compro mise, in 1820, slavery was timid and cautious. Ikdid not seek for the whole territory. It said : " Grant us Mis souri as a slave State, and from the ter ritory north of 36° 30' north latitude, slavery shall be entirely excluded for ever. Give us this small part ; you,may take the rest. When you wanted to secure the annexation of Texas, and its admission into the Union as a State, you did not say that Texas should forever be doomed to slavery. You said, let it come in as a slave State, and then there shall be new States formed out of it — not more than five, nor less thau three ; and- as to all that portion of Texas which is north of 36° 30', it shall be free ter ritory ; and as to the new States which may be formed out of it south of 36° 30', they shall be slave States or free States, just as the people inhabiting them may desire. Slavery, then, was cautious — timid ; not so bold as now. When you desire to erect Territorial government in the territory acquired from Mexico-, you did not say, as you say now, that slavery goes into every foot of that territory. You did not say, if the laws are not sufficient there to protect it, the courts or Congress must protect it ; but you said, let that terri tory stand ; it is to be governed by; cli mate, and by geography, and by its pro ductions. It is fixed, said Mr. Webster, by an irrepealable law, and slavery never can go there. But, sir, experience has shown that Mr. Webster was not right; that the law of climate and of geography and of production, which he cited, was not suf ficient to control the institution in that country; arid in spite of climate, in spite of geography, in spite of production, and in spite of nature, and, I had almost said, in spite of the Sovereign Ruler of the Territory, slavery has gone there; and the Territorial Legislature of New Mexico have passed a code of laws which I do not hesitate to say are bar barous — a disgrace to civilization and to humanity.. So too, sir, when you repealed the Missouri compromise, you did not do it boldly. You did not say, " We wish. slavery to go into the- territory north of 36° 30' north latitude." Yon said, " We do not wish to extend slavery ; and it never will go there, unless some household servants are carried there." By indirection, by persuading the people- of the country that the settlement of the question was to be left to the inhabitants of the Territory, you repealed the Mis souri compromise. Now, sir, six years afterwards, slavery has grown bold ; it walks erect, and its supporters say, " We must be allowed to carry our slaves into the Territories, every inch and every foot of them, if we desire. We have a right under the Constitution so to carry them there, and the Con gress ' must pass laws to protect our property there." You see, Mr. President, how bold this institution has grown — what its practice is now, compared to what it was formerly. Now, it seeks directly to ap propriate the whole territory to itself. It seeks all the territory from the Rio Grande to the British possessions, from the Gulf of California to Puget Sound, 4 from the western line of Missouri to the I does H continne, slavery. _ Slavery existed inde- * .- T, , , , v • i .-.pendent of the Constitution, and antecedent to Pacific. It does not seek to divide the, l.he CollstitutioD . aad it TH'S dependent in the territory now as formerly, but it grasps the whole; up the rivers, over the mountains, and down into the valleys ; in the sunny South, aud in the ice- ribbed North; upon- the arid and bar ren centre, and upon the fertile slopes ; wherever a white man may go, slavery seeks to accompany him. Briareus- like, with its hundred aims, it grasps the entire territory of the United States ¦Government. But, Mr. President, not only is the doctrine of this resolution bold, but it is alarming— alarming, because it makes another step in the progress of the slave power. At first, freedom claimed and was granted the whole. When the Gov ernment was founded, the fathers of the States, cot upon the will of Congress, but upon the law of the respective States. The Constitu tion is silent and passive upon the subject of the institution of slavery; or, rather, it deals with the fact as a fact that exists, without bavin* created, continued, or being responsible for it, in the slightest degree, within the States." Now, instead of, as in 1820, taldno a portion of the territory, and having it admitted as a slave State, and yielding the rest of the territory to- freedom, sla very claims the whole territory. That is the doctrine of this resolution; that there is a constitutional right, on the part of the slave master, to take Ms slave and go with him anywhere hito tho territory of the United States, and hold him there as a slave ; and if the laws are not sufficient now for the purpose of country, the framers of the ordinance of | holding him there, this Government is 1787 and of the Constitution, restricted slavery, and prohibited it from all the territories of the United States, unless it might be a certain indefinite portion ceded by South Carolina. In 1820, when you established the Missouri com promise, slavery claimed a part, but was willing to yield the most. She bound to provide laws sufficient to hold him there. I say the doctrine is alarm ing to the free States, because the next step will be to claim that the slave may go into the States where slavery is not tolerated by the law of the State, as well as into the Territories, and that Con gress under the Constitution, which is claimed to have Missouri come in as a j the supreme law, must protect him slave State; but as to all that territory j there. This point, I think, is easily north of 36° 30', she yielded it forever j maintained — indeed, the position seems as free territory; and as to the territory! to me impregnable — that if, under the then left south of the line of 36° 30', I Constitution and by virtue of it, the nothing was said, whether it was to be slave owner may carry his slave into the slave territory or free territory. Mr. Clay, in his speech in 1850 on the com promise measures, maintained that, even Territories, and Congress must protect him there, he may equally carry him into any of the free States, and Congress as to that territory south of the line of j must protect him there.' The Consti- J 30', slavery could not go there. 1 1 tution extends over States as well as M, 36c will read an extract from that speech, because it serves to show how much the slave power has advanced since that time. I read from the speech of Mr. Clay made on the 22d of July, 1850 : " I am aware that there are gentlemen who maintain that, in virtue of the Constitution, the right to carry slaves south of that line already exists, and that, of conrse, those who maintain Territories — is as supreme over one as the other ; and the States cannot by any law of theirs defeat it in the exer cise of any of its proper functions or powers. Let us trace the doctrine a little fur ther in its progress. In 185-1, when you enacted the Kansas-Nebraska bill, that opinion want no other security for the tran3- ! }*ou maintained that the jurisdiction portation of their slaves south of that line than j should be left to the people Over the }™ ™d" T°lJ!, ^ nf br,rd tbftt °pin" subject "of slavery ; that if they wanted ion avowed, I should have regarded it as one of l ±i i iti •. •/,, rj the most extraordinary, assumptions, ---and the blavei)-; they Should have lt ; it they did most in^fejD^LbJe^po^itibfl^hiOt .-w^.^veifi token ' wpr want^t, they, /should not have it; b/.ffiJVr>; ir^i^^Uj4terl?i?^;r15r!PD^ 5S ' th^pppl^'o|i4he-/j'ie^Titory were to t^e- 5 cicle for themselves. Do you hold that doctrine now ? No, sir. It is now dis tinctly avowed that the people of a Ter ritory cannot, at any time, restrict sla very from the Territory. They can only do so when they come to form a Constitution for admission as a State. I want some gentleman who under stands, and who has looked at the mat ter, to answer me these questions. If the people of a Territory have power over slavery when they form a State Government, where do they get it? Does Congress grant them the power 1 But you deny that Congress has any jurisdiction over slavery in the Territo ries. Congress has no such power to grant. Is it inherent in themselves ? If so, why cannot they use it before they form that Constitution ? I want some body to answer me this other question : If the Constitution carries slavery into the Territories, and is, in that respect, the supreme law of the land to protect slavery there, so that the people of the Territory cannot abolish it, where do the people of the. Territory get the power to override the Constitution? It is the supreme law of the land. ' Then, if they possess no power to override the Constitution, I want you to tell me where the people of a State, when they are admitted as a State, get the power to exclude slavery ? The Constitution, according to your doctrine, carries sla very in its hands, and bears it forward and protects it. Where, then, do the people get the power, in any State, to abolish it ? The Constitution is the su preme law of the land in a State, just as much as it is in a Territory. There is no difference made in the Constitu tion, as regards the efficacy of the powers of the Constitution and the laws of Con gress under it, between a State and a Territory. It does not say that you shall be able to restrict slavery in a Territory, and not in a State. The Constitution is supreme both in Terri tory and in State. The cause of alarm is here : you said, five years ago, that the people of a Territory, at any time, might exclude slavery. You say now, they can only exclude it when they are admitted into the Union as a State. Will you not, two years hence, or four years hence, say that no State can ex clude it ; and will you not say that the slave master has a right to take his slave from Virginia, and go into- Massa chusetts or New Hampshire, and hold him there? Will you not say that the Constitution acknowledges the slave as property, treats him as such;. and that we have no right to abolish your right of property in a slave? Will you not say that you have a right to go there, and take your property into the States, although they were admitted into the Union at the time of the formation of the Government ? I say, then, Mr. President, the peo ple of the free States have great cause for alarm. The progress of slavery has been directly towards the end which I indicate — not only to uphold slavery in the Territories, but, by and by, it will be to uphold it in the free States against the will and laws of those; States. I am not left without authority on that subject, and I desire to call the atten tion of the Senate again to the same speech of Mr. Clay from which I be fore read, in which he maintains the doctrine, that if the Constitution pro tects and defends slavery in the Terri tories, it must be admitted that it equal ly protects and defends it in the States. He says : " If the Constitution possess the paramount authority attributed to it, the laws of even the free States of the Union would yield to that par amount authority." And, speaking of the admission of Cal ifornia into the Union at that time, he says further, in the same speech : " Why, if the Constitution gave the privilege, it would be incompetent for California to adopt the provision which she has in her Constitution." That is, if the Constitution gave the privilege of holding slaves in California, it would be incompetent for the people of California to adopt a provision in their Constitution restricting slavery. Now, Mr. President, it is claimed that the Constitution carries slavery into the Territories, or that under and by virtue of the Constitution the slaveholder may take his property in 6 slaves into the Territories ; and if this position is yielded, and becomes estab lished under this Government, the day- is not far distant, in ray judgment, when shivery will claim extension into the old States, over which the Constitution is the supreme law. The latter will follow the former as certainly as the conclusion does the premises; the outpost gained, the as sault upon the citadel will be certain and speedy; and the time may come, when the slave master may be adjudged under the Constitution, interpreted by a court composed of a majority of South ern judges, to have a right to hold his slaves upon the ba.ttle-fields of Lexing ton or Bunker's Hill, where patriots fell for freedom ! I was saying, Mr. President, when I was interrupted, that it is a part of the political history of the country, which every intelligent, man knows, that , some of the men who aided to form our Con stitution — and the men who, from their! position, might be best supposed to know • what was intended by its provisions — ; adopted the ordinance of 1787, and ex-i tended it over the Northwest Territory. | It was the institution of a Government for the Territories; not for a Territory I in particular, but for the Territories of- the United States, out of which several j new States were to be at some tiaie . formed. It was the beginning ; and at, that beginning they excluded slavery ! from all that region of country, except! for the punishment of crime, which was '. from all the territory to which the Uni- i ted States had then any exelu-ive claim. ' There had been a cession made by the ' State of South Carolina, I believe, at : that time ; but what its boundaries were i could not be precisely ascertained. There ] was no political cant, then, that slavery ; was " before and above all law and Con- | stitutions," nor that it rested on the; same foundation as other property, j These men said "there shall be neither! slavery nor involuntary servitude in the '' said Territory." This was in the Con- ! gress under the Confederation ; and it ! is remarkable that one of the articles of: this ordinance (to wit : the fifth) made' provision for the admission of not less than three nor more than five new States, which new" States were at liberty to form permanent State Governments, "provided the Constitution and State Government so to be formed shall be republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles'''' — . that is, shall exclude slavery ; and this article the Assembly of Virginia ratified and confirmed, reciting it verbatim in the act of her Assembly, on the 30th day of December, 17S-3- The fashionable doctrine now is, that when a State comes to Congress .for ad mission, Congress has nothing to do but to look at her Constitution, and see that it is republican in its character, and then admit the State; but in this in stance, and by this ordinance, the Con gress of the Confederation provided that the State not only should adopt a Con stitution republican in its character, but it should make a Constitution con formable to that ordinance, and should exclude slavery from the State by its Constitution. Virginia, when she passed the act reciting the provisions of the or dinance, and assenting to it, had not learned the doctrine, that African sla very was right, and that it ennobled either race — the white man or the Af rican. She sought not to extend it, but ratified and confirmed the act which excluded it from the States to be formed out of the vast territory which she had ceded for th States. Thus the Congress of the Confedera tion formed the earliest system of gov ernment for the Territories ; Virginia ratified and confirmed it; and the first Congress under the Constitution, by the act of August 7, 17S9, in order that it might continue to have full effect, adapt ed it to the Constitution. Where ivas squatter sovereignty then ? Did the founders of the Government say, " We will leave it to the people of the Terri tory to decide whether they will have slavery or not?" Did they say that " When the State comes in with her Constitution, we will leave it to the peo ple to adopt a restriction on slavery in common good of all the the Constitution or not?" Certainly not. It was one of the provisions by which they could come into the Union, and to which 4hey were confined, that they should restrict slavery and keep it out of their Territory by the Constitu tion of the .State. The framers of the ordinance said it shall "not be extend ed into this Territory." I need scarce ly refer to the action of Congress after wards, in 1803, in regard to the Terri tory of Indiana, when the people of Indi ana petitioned for the right to hold slaves. Congress refused them that permission. The action of Congress upon that sub ject is to be found in the American State Papers, Public Lands, volume I, page 160, and also page 68 ; and in the last instance, Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, made the report. Indulge me with this short extract only: " The committee deem it highly dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision wisely cal culated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the Northwestern country ,-and give strength and security to that extensive frontier." Do you tell me, Mr. President, that the ordinance of 1787 was adopted un der the Articles of Confederation, and not under the present Constitution, and that the state of slavery under the Arti cles of Confederation might be one thing, and its state under the Constitution an other; that under the Articles of Con federation Congress might have power to prohibit it, and under the Constitution not have power to prohibit it? Then, I say to you, sir, that Congress, after the adoption of the Constitution, by the act of August 7, 1789, (one of the earliest of the acts under the Constitution,) adopted this very ordinance, so altering some of its provisions as to adapt.it to the Constitution. They repeated it also, May 20, 1790, in the case of Ohio. They repeated it May 7, 1800, in the case of Indiana. They repeated it Jan uary 11, 1805, in the case of Michigan. They repeated it May 3, 1809, in the case of Illinois. They repeated it in the case of Wisconsin ; and again, March 6, 1820, in the passage of the Missouri compromise. They, repeated it again, June 12, 1838, in the case of Iowa ; and again, August 14, 1848, in the ca.-e of Oregon; and again, March 3, 1849, in the case of Minnesota. In every one of these cases they referred to that ordi nance, carried some portions of it over the Territory, and excluded slavery. Thus, Mr. President, for sixty years, by these acts, did the Congress, under the Constitution, restrict slavery from the Territories ; and now we have, as the modern doctrine, the assertion that all that legislation for sixty years was unconstitutional, at variance with the Constitution; that there was no power to restrict slavery in the Territories by the Constitution; but that, on the other hand, the Constitution carried slavery into all of them, ancV should protect it there. But, Mr. President, there is another class of instances besides these, much to my purpose. The doctrine claimed here, is, that if the law of the Territory is insufficient, or if the courts are inad equate to protect property in slaves, Congress should do it; it is the duty of Congress to do it ; and there is no dis tinction made in such property,. whether born here or imported ; the claim is the same. The first of the instances to which I now refer is the act of May 26, 1790, for the government of the terri tory of the United States south of the river Ohio. This act referred to another of April 2, 1790, accepting the deed of the cession of land by North Carolina- In that deed of cession, dated February 25, 1790 — after the passage of the or- linance of 1787, and after its adoption >y the act of Congress of August 7, there was this remarkable pro- 1789 viso : " That no regulation made, or to be made, by Congress, shall tend to emancipate slaves." Now, this is the point of the argu ment in this instance. North Carolina well understood, that, under the Con stitution, Congress held the power to exclude slaves from the Territory, and might exercise it, unless she provided against it in her deed of cession, as she did. There was no pretevce then, that a master could carry his slave there, and that Congress was bound to protect him under the Constitution. The fear was, thot, under the Constitution, Congress would exclude him; and hence the pro viso. The next instance was the establish ment of tin- Territory of Mississippi, in April, 1798- By that act, the Presi dent was " authorized to establish therein a government in all respects similar to that now exercised in the territory northwest of the river Ohio, excepting and excluding the last article of the ordinance ; " and the people were entitled to all its immunities and privi leges. The importation of slaves was prohibited under a pecuniary penalty, and the slave so imported set free. There was no provision for the protec tion of slaves in thi< act. March 26th, 1804, the Territories of Orleans and Louisiana were estab lished. No special provision was made in that act for the protection of slaves ; but, on the contrary, no citizen of any State could carry a slave into the Ter ritory of Orleans, unless he actually owned the slave, and teas going there to settle. It debarred all others from the Territory, and declared every slave brought in against the provision^ of the act entitled to freedom. Here was a direct acknowledgment of the power of Congress to exclude slaves ; for if it could exclude a part, it could exclude the whole. And here, too, is the declara tion of the law, that the slave should be free if brought in contrary to the pro visions of the law. They prohibited the. master from carrying 'the slave there, and declared the slave free if he did. Then there was the act of March 4, 1805, erecting the Territory of Orleans. It extended over the Territory the ordi nance of 1787, except the second para graph respecting descent of estates, and the sixth article of the compact. It also imposed restrictions upon the form ation of a Constitution. If Congress could impose the restriction that the Constitution should not be repugnant to the ordinance of 1787 in one particular, why not in all ? Next came the act of June 4, 1812, in regard to the Missouri Territory. Here power was granted to make laws in all cases for the good government of the people. No man was- to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by judg ment of his peers. There was nothing in that act protecting slave property, nor was it claimed at that time that the Constitution carried slaves, or that Con gress was bound to protect them there. Then came the act of March 3, 1822, in regard to Florida, which granted to the Territorial Government power to legislate upon all rightful subjects of legislation. The New Mexico and Utah acts of September 9, 1850, required the laws passed in those Territories to be submitted to Congress, and gave the Territorial Legislatures power over all rightful subjects of legislation. The act of March 2, 1853, establishing Washington Territory, granted power to the Territorial Legislature to pass laws in regard to all rightful subjects of legislation. There was no provision for the protection of slavery in any of these acts. The next was the Kansas-Nebraska act, of May 30, 1854, which did not leg islate shivery into the Territory, and did not legislate shivery out of the Ter ritory; but it did not pretend that the Constitution carried slavery into the Territory. There was no claim made then for the protection of slavery in the Territory under the Constitution. Mr. President, no Territory in which slavery was permitted by the organic act has ever become a free State, that I am aware of; and no Territory from which slavery was excluded has ever become a slave State — a most instruct ive experience in the history of the Government. But, sir, bold, alarming, and contrary to the policy and history of the legisla tion of this Government, as the doctrine of this resolution is, if it is to be se riously contended for and adopted by the Democratic party, as it will be if the South demand it, I am glad it is here. In the language of one of the Senators from Mississippi, " We do not want to cheat or to be cheated." Let 9 us understand .each other. The De mocracy^ at least the Southern wing of it, and a portion of the Northern, de clare that the Constitution carries sla very into all the Territories of the Uni ted States, or, what is equivalent, that, under the Constitution, the slave mas ter has a right to take his slave into a Territory of the United States ; and if the haws there are not sufficient to pro tect him in the enjoyment of that so- called right of property, the people of the Territory should pass laws to secure it ; and, the people of the Territory failing to do it, Congress should do it, unless the courts should have sufficient power ; thus making Congress the guar dian and protector of slavery in all the Territories of the United States ; in fact, establishing it there. From this construction of the Consti tution the Republicans dissent. To this office of Congress, as founder and pro tector of slavery, they object. To pre vent the extension of slavery into the Territories of the Federal Government, is a cardinal object with the Republi can party. The repeal of the Missouri compromise, which had stood as a sen tinel for more than thirty years to guard the territory north of 36° 30' north latitude from the aggressions of the slave power, revealed its design to spread slavery into all the Territories of the Union, and roused the determi nation in millions of hearts to pre vent it. From that determination, like Mi nerva from the head of Jove, fully ma tured, and armed with unflinching pur pose and iron will, the Republican party sprang into existence to prevent the ac complishment of that design. Stigma tizing it as a "relic of barbarism," it avows its purpose to confine it in its pres ent limits ; and if then it shall become unprofitable, " be smothered," to use the language of the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas,] and "die out," it will only the sooner bring the accomplish ment of the earnest desires and expect ation of the founders of this Govern ment. They will rejoice at it. To prevent the extension of slavery in the Territories, I have said, was a cardinal object of the Republican party; but when I say this, I deny that it at tempts or seeks to attempt, by any ac tion of the General Government, to inter fere with it in the States where it exists. It is a matter beyond the contr-.l uf such action. But let it be understood also that vast numbers of those who com prise the Republican party, and of those who sympathize with it, deny the right of any man or' body of men to hold or establish property in man ; and they will discuss the institution iff slave ry, and hold it up as a moral, social, and political evil, as ruinous to the prosper ity and population of the States where it exists, as a clog to their progress, a3 an enemy to the Union, and a reproach ' to free Governments; and, therefore, an evil to be excluded from the Territories. They will discuss it, because it is sought to be extended. They do not forget nor underrate the force of public opinion ; they know that Legislatures and States acknowledge its- power, and are swayed and controlled b3r it; that neither Vir ginia nor. Mississippi will long have slaves, when public opinion demands their emancipation. They will, there fore, labor to guide and strengthen that public opinion, by the school, the pulpit, and the press ; by writing, and by oral speech ; ' by the public journal and tho periodical ; by the exhibition of the ben efits of free labor, and by every proper means, until the master himself, seeing the vast benefits of free labor, and the rapid progress of free States, feeling the force of the fundamental axiom of Jef ferson, " that all men are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi ness," and knowing the mauifold injus tice of a system which is evil, and " that continually," shall remove the " hooks of steel " which have " grappled " sla very to the social and political system. In the language of Mr. Webster, in 1847, and repeated in his 7th of March speech of 1850 : ' " We are to use the first, and last, and every opportunity which offers, to oppose the exten sion of the slave power." Make slavery extension and protec- 10 tion in the Territories the issue, and we, State, he became free, because there will meet you upon it. Take a slave j was no law to hold him, unless it was code for your platform, or make it a permitted there by sufferance plank in it, aud you will convert it into a plate of red-hot steel, upon which no In this state of things, the Constitu tion was formed. Did the Constitution Northern man can stand. Reveal and .alter the condition of the slave in the publish such to be your purpose, and! States? Did it enact any provision the history of the end of Northern De- ; which altered his condition? Did it mocracy shall be as short and graphic ' confer any new power upon the master, as that, of the Chaldean monarch — j or restrict the master in any exercise of "In that night was Belshazzar, ihe King ..f, authority over his slave ? Did it make the Chaldeans, slain." j any provision by which the slave should I come now, Mr. President, to speak I be carried from one State into another, of the power of Congress, under the or from one Territory into another? Constitution, to protect slavery in the l-Not at all. There are in the Constitu- Territorics. I deny that it has such a I tion only four provisions concerning power. I deny that, under the Consti- ' slaves. The first is to be found in ar- tution, and by virtue of the Constitution, ' tide first, in the second section, and the slave master derives any right to, third paragraph. It is that which re take his slave into the Territories. ILlates to representation and taxation, and he has that right, it is before the Con- j the provision by which " three-fifths of stitution, and independent of the Con- j all other persons " are to be included stitution. Let us look, for a moment, ' for taxation and representation-. I do at what was the condition of things at, not deny that it referred to slaves; but the formation i)f the Constitution. The1 do you find any provision there which history of the times may afford us some 1 can, by any system of reasoning, or by light in coming to a correct conclusion j any logic, give to the master the right on this subject. There were then thir- j to take his slave from a State into a teen States, in most of which slaves . Territory, and have Congress protect were held, which had been united under, him there ? Let us bear in mind what the Articles of Confederation. I say, j is always necessary in interpreting the in most of the-e States slaves were held, ' provisions of the Constitution, that it is held by virtue of local law, or local cus- ! a Constitution of delegated power3. torn having the force of law. It did not j Congress can do nothing that is not cxlzt by the common law, but by the j delegated directly or impliedly to -it; local law ; and it is a little remarkable > all other powers are restricted to the that, whatever else may have been de- j States. Now, if here directly you find cided in the Dred Scott case, the judges, that Congress has power delegated to it to enact laws protecting slaves in the who were the majority of the court, who I * ' T ' 'J gave that opinion and concurred in the <¦ possession of their masters in the Terri reasoning of the Chief Justice, did not! tories, I grant it. If you find any such undertake to say that, by the common implied power, I grant it to you ; but I could be held, or to over- say it is here neither directly nor indi- law, a slave throw a prior decision of the Supreme Court that a slave was held by the local law. Each State held it, for itself, un der its own laws or by its own customs. Virginia held it by Iter laws or by her customs, and when a slave went out of Virginia into Maryland, or was carried into Maryland, he was then held by the laws of Maryland ; and, if carried into North Carolina, held by the laws of North Carulina. If carried to a free rectly, and caunot be drawn from any granted power. The next provision is that of section nine : " The migration or importation of such person3 as any of the States now existing shall th ink proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1S0S ; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation." I understand that it has been argued that the Constitution by this provision guarantied to the States the right to im- 11 port these people until 1808. If that were material to the argument, I should deny it, because these thirteen States were together forming this Constitution; they were delegating powers to the Fed eral Government; they said, hi fact, " we will not give to the Federal Gov ernment power to prohibit the importa tion of slaves until 1S03 ; as to certain of the States, we will withhold that power, we will manage and control it ourselves, and Congress shall have no power over the subject." It was noth ing granted to Congress. It was a with holding' of power. . From a withholding of power you cannot well argue a guar anty ; but it is simply saying, we re serve to ourselves power in the States to import these people until 1808. Do you find in that provision any authority on the part of Congress to pass laws pro tecting slaves when they are carried into the Territories, when the local laws are insufficient? The next provision in the Constitu tion on the subject is in article four, section two, paragraph three. It is a very familiar one — one often cited and commented upon : " No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such ser vice or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.'' Here is a direct example that the founders of the Government, the makers and framers of the Constitution, treated slavery as a local institution. "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof" — not under the Constitution, but under the laws of that State — " escaping," &c, shall be set free by the law of the other State, but he shall be delivered up. Is it claimed that, by this provision that a fugitive slave shall be returned into the State from which he escaped, you get the power to protect a slave in a Terri tory, when he is carried there' by his master? I think the argument is strongly and clearly the other way. The only- power delegated in that par ticular was, that if he did escape out of the jurisdiction of the State, where the State laws did not- reach him, into an other State, where there was a different law or regulation, he should n.jt be set free by virtue of that regulation, but should be delivered back to the State from whence lie came. The next allusion is in article fire, at the close of the article : " J'rovidecl, That no amendment which maybe made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article." Referring to the article which provides that Congress should not prevent the immigration or importation of certain people prior to 1808. These are the only clauses which I find in the Consti tution relating to slaves. It is very true, the word "slaves" is not used here. They are spoken of as " persons held to labor," or " such persons as the States may think proper to import," or " three-fifths of all other persons ; " but I grant that the Constitution there refers to slaves held in the various States. Can any person who inter prets the Constitution by the ordinary rules of interpretation, who has a knowl edge of its formation, and of the history of the Government and of the country at the time of its formation, say that either of these provisions authorizes the slaveholder to take his slave, into the Territories of the United States, and have him there- protected by a. law of Congress passed under 'this Constitu tion ? for that is the claim. I say that Congress has no such power. I am aware that there ai'e other provis ions of the Constitution under which this power might be claimed. I am aware of the provision that Congress may make irth .ire insulted, apprehended, beaten, tarred and leather ed, imprisoned, and expelled from the State, or hung up without trial and murdered. This robbery of the mails, and this expulsion of citizens of other States, the' subsidized and paid organ of the Presi dent approves. The Constitution of Fcburary 20th says : '¦ We maintain the right and policy of Virginia, for example, in seizing documents of a c -md-nmed character in the Uniied S-ates.post offices with in her borders. And as we rejoice to behold abolition preachers, teachers, and peddlers, ex pelled from the South, so we approve," &c. Now, Mr. President, what is the in terest or power that leads to rhis;robbery and violence? What makes the Presi dent, by his organ, thus approve it '? The answer is ready and obvious, the slave interest and slave power. Shall we, then, extend and strengthen that power, which thus openly and de fiantly multiplies its acts of violence and wrong, tramples on the Constitution, and bids the Administration approve its misdeeds 1 Is it not already too strong 1 15 It is the tiger which has scented blood, and which now lashes itself to fury be fore it fastens its fangs upon its victim. Safety lies in caging the animal, and not permitting him to roam further. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Hunter] said, in his speech a few days since : " If I am right, Jlr. President, we see here a mass of vast and associated interests which mu tually contribute to the support of each other, constituting, if I may use Ihe simile, a mighty arch, which, by the concentrated strength and by the mutual support of it3 parts, is able to sustain such a social superstructure as perhaps is unparalleled in the history of man ; and is it not obvious, too, that the very keystone of this arch consists in the black marble cap of African slavery. Knock that out, and the mighty fab ric, with all that it upholds, topple3and tumbles to its fall." Mr. President, if this be so,, we are committing a great mistake. There now stands in the old Hall of Represent atives a female figure of white marble. Her eye is elevated, and her attitude unconstrained and easy. In one hand she holds a shield, aud in the other a sword. Upon the pedestal is inscribed the irrepressible-conflict word, " Free-; dom ; " and it is designed for the top of the dome of the Capitol. But if the Senator is right, it should not be placed there. It should be broken ; and an image should be made of black marble or ebony; upon its hands should be manacles ; upon the front, the brand of a slave ; and it should be elevated upon the highest point on the nation's Legis lative Halls — yea, over the very sittings of the Supreme Court — as an index to all who behold, that the " cap-st.i.e," the "crowning glory" of the mighty fabric of human rights and .-reif-go vern ment, is this poor miserable vh.-'im of " wrong, cruelty, and oppression " — the African slave !- Has it come to this, then, that our fathers counselled and toiled and taught for the inestimable, inalienable righis of man, and that the highest, most valua ble of them all — that without which the others would not be worth preserving, and must perish — is the right to L'/id a negro in slavery. But, Mr. President, this is not so. The Senator is not right. Slavery is not the keystone of this arch ; it would not fall if it were removed. It may better be compared to an unsteady, roll ing cobble-stone admitted into the struc ture, which causes it sometimes to trem ble, but which, skilfully removed, or se cured in its place, the whole may stand securely. Let not, then, the image be broken. Let it rise into its place. Let it sur mount the dome of this Capitol. Let it bear the sword and shield. Let the free man look to it with gratitude and mingled shame and admiration ; the bondman with hope and faith ,- and let it symbolize that higher state of civiliza tion and equal self-government, when all nations and all races, each in its proper place, but all free, shall form one mighty, well-adjusted temple, whose crowning glory shall be " equal and ex act justice to all men." YALE WASHINGTON, D. C. BUSLL k BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 1860. '"