« PreviousContinue »
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore also the same act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and entitled "An act in addition to the act entitled An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States;" as also the act passed by them on the 27th day of June, 1798, entitled "An act to punish frauds committed on the Bank of the United States," (and all other their acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes other than those enumerated in the Constitution), are altogether void and of no force, and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and of right appertains solely and exclusively, to the respective States, each within its own territory.
3. Resolved, That it is true, as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;" and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or to the people; that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; and thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious principles and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference; and that, in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press, insomuch that whatever violates either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others; and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That therefore the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th of July, 1798, entitled "An act in addition to the act entitled An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.
that "no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law," and that another having provided, "that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed as to the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have assistance of counsel for his defense," the same act undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without having witnesses in his favor, without defense, without counsel, is contrary to these provisions also of the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void and of no force.
That transferring the power of judging any person who is under the protection of the laws, from the courts to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which provides, that "the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in the courts, the judges of which shall hold their office during good behavior," and that the said act is void for that reason also; and it is further to be noted that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the General Government who already possesses all the executive, and a qualified negative on all the legislative powers.
7. Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evident by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, excises; to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any department thereof, goes to the destruction of all the limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: That words meant by that instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of the limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part so to be taken as to destroy the whole residue of the instrument: That the proceedings of the General Government under color of those articles, will be a fit and necessary subject for revisal and correction at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress.
8. Resolved, That the preceding resolutions be transmitted to the senators and representatives in Congress from this commonwealth, who are enjoined to present the same to their respective Houses, and to use their best endeavors to procure at the next session of Congress a repeal of the aforesaid unconstitutional and obnoxious acts.
9. Resolved lastly, That the governor of this commonwealth be, and is hereby authorized and requested to com4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdic-municate the preceding resolutions to the legislatures of tion and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled, "An act concerning aliens," which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.
the several States, to assure them that this commonwealth considers union for special national purposes, and particularly for those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness, and prosperity of all the States-that, faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was un derstood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation; that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government, and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness, or prosperity of these States; and that, therefore, this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated and consequently unlimited powers in no man or body of men on earth; that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the General Government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves, whether enumerated or not enumerated by the Constitution as cognisable by them; that they may transfer its cognizance to the President or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge, and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sen
5. Resolved, That in addition to the general principle as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision inferred in the Constitution, from abundant caution has declared, "that the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808." That this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens; that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory; that to remove them when migrated is equivalent to a prohi-tence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole bition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void.
6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by the said act, entitled, "An act concerning aliens," is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment in which has provided,
record of the transaction; that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States, being by this precedent reduced as outlaws to the absolute dominion of one man and the barriers of the Constitution thus swept from us all, and no rampart now remains against the passions and the power of a majority of Congress, to protect from a like exportation or other grievous punishment the minority of the same body, the legis
| government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural rights in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these void and of no force, and will each unite with this commonwealth in requesting their repeal at the next session of Congress.
On the 14th of Nov., 1799, the Kentucky House of Representatives, after having received replies to the above from the legislatures of several States, which replies seem to have been unsatisfactory, reiterated its position as follows:
latures, judges, governors, and counselors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people, or who, for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their elections or other interests, public or personal; that the friendless alien has been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment; but the citizen will soon follow, or rather has already followed; for, already has a sedition act marked him as a prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested on the threshold, may tend to drive these States into revolution and blood, and will furnish new calumnies against republican governments, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed, that man cannot be governed but by a Resolved, That this commonwealth considers the Federod of iron; that it would be a dangerous delusion were ral Union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and hapfor the safety of our rights; that confidence is every-piness of the several States: That it does now unequivo where the parent of despotism; free government is founded cally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not compact, agreeably to its obvious and real intention, and confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; those who administer the General Government be permitthat our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to ted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a which, and no farther, our confidence may go; and let total disregard to the special delegations of power therethe honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and in contained, an annihilation of the State governments, Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been and the creation upon their ruins of a general consoliwise in fixing limits to the government it created, and dated government, will be the inevitable consequence : whether we should be wise in destroying those limits? Let That the principle and construction contended for by him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, sundry of the State legislatures, that the General Governwhich the men of our choice have conferred on the Presi- ment, is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers dent, and the President of our choice has assented to and delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism-since accepted over the friendly strangers, to whom the mild the discretion of those who administer the government, spirit of our country and its laws had pledged hospitality and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their and protection; that the men of our choice have more powers-That the several States who formed that instrurespected the bare suspicions of the President than the solid ment, being sovereign and independent, have the unquesrights of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred tionable right to judge of the infraction; and that a nulforce of truth, and the forms and substance of law and lification by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts justice. In questions of power, then, let no more be said done under color of that instrument is the rightful reof confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief medy: That this commonwealth does, under the most by the chains of the Constitution. That this commondeliberate reconsideration, declare that the said Alien wealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expresand Sedition laws are, in their opinion, palpable violasion of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens, and tions of the said Constitution; and, however cheerfully for the punishment of certain crimes hereinbefore speci- it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority fied, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not of its sister States, in matters of ordinary or doubtful authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not policy, yet, in momentous regulations like the present, that their sense will be so announced as to prove their which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it attachment to limited government, whether general or would consider a silent acquiescence as highly criminal: particular, and that the rights and liberties of their coThat although this commonwealth, as a party to the fedeStates will be exposed to no dangers by remaining emral compact, will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it barked on a common bottom with their own; but they does, at the same time, declare that it will not now, or will concur with this commonwealth in considering the ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional mansaid acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to ner every attempt, at what quarter soever offered, to amount to an undisguised declaration, that the compact violate that compact. And, finally, in order that no preis not meant to be the measure of the powers of the Genetext or arguments may be drawn from a supposed acquiral Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise escence on the part of this commonwealth in the constiover these States of all powers whatsoever. That they tutionality of those laws, and be thereby used as precewill view this as seizing the rights of the States and consodents for similar future violations of the federal compact lidating them in the hands of the General Government, this commonwealth does now enter against them its with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely in solemn protest. cases made federal) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent; that this would be to surrender the form of
This resolution passed the Senate on the 22d Nov., 1799.
MR. DOUGLAS' OPINIONS
On the 25th January, 1845, Mr. Douglas, then a member of the House of Representatives, offered the following amendment to the joint Resolution for the Annexation of Texas:
"And in such State or States as may be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude-except for crimeshall be prohibited."-Cong. Globe, vol. 14, page 193.
HE DEFENDS THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
On the 13th of March, 1850, Mr. Douglas made a speech in the United States Senate, from which the following is an extract:
"The next in the series of aggressions complained of by the Senator from South Carolina, is the Missouri Compromise. The Missouri Compromise, an act of Northern injustice, designed to deprive the South of her due share of the Territories! Why, sir, it was only on this very day that the Senator for Mississippi despaired
ON SLAVERY, &c.
of any peaceable adjustment of existing difficulties, extended to the Pacific. That measure was originally because the Missouri Compromise line could not be adopted in the bill for the admission of Missouri by the
union of Northern and Southern votes. The South has always professed to be willing to abide by it, and even to continue it, as a fair and honorable adjustment of a vexed and difficult question. In 1845, it was adopted in the resolutions for the annexation of Texas, by Southern as well as Northern votes, without the slightest complaint that it was unfair to any section of the country. In 1846, it received the support of every Southern member of the exception, as an alternative measure to the Wilmot ProHouse of Representatives-Whig and Democrat-without visio. And again in 1848, as an amendment to the Oregon bill, on my motion, it received the vote, if I recollect aright-and I do not think that I can possibly be mistaken-of every Southern Senator, Whig and Democrat, even including the Senator from South Carolina himself, (Mr. Calhoun.) And yet we are now told that this is only second to the Ordinance of 1787 in the series of aggressions on the South."-Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 1, page 870.
"The Territories belong to the United States as one people, one nation, and are to be disposed of for the common benefit of all, according to the principles of the Constitution. Each State, as a member of the Confederacy, has a right to a voice in forming the rules and regulations for the government of the Territories; but the different sections-North, South, East and Westhave no such right. It is no violation of Southern rights to prohibit Slavery."-Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, | part 1, page 869.
HE ADVOCATES THE IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT." On the same day, and in the same speech, Mr. Douglas said:
"I have already had occasion to remark, that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there were twelve (slave States), and six of them have since abolished slavery. This fact shows that the cause of freedom has steadily and firmly advanced, while slavery has receded in the same ratio. We all look forward with confidence to the time when Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and probably North Carolina and Tennessee, will adopt one gradual system of eman cipation, under the operation of which those States must, in process of time, become free."
And again, on the same page, speaking of a proposition to amend the Constitution, so as to preserve an "equilibrium " in point of numbers between free and slave States, he says:
"Then, sir, the proposition of the Senator from South Carolina is entirely impracticable. It is also inadmissible, if practicable. It would revolutionize the fundamental principle of the Government. It would destroy the great principle of popular equality, which must necessarily form the basis of all free institutions. It would be a retrograde movement in an age of progress, that would
astonish the world.”—Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 1, page 371.
MAY RIGHTFULLY EXCLUDE SLAVES
On the 13th of March, 1850, in the speech already quoted from, Mr. Douglas said:
"But you say that we propose to prohibit by law your emigrating to the Territories with your property. We propose no such thing. We recognize your right, in common with our own, to emigrate to the Territories with your property, and there to hold and enjoy it in subordination to the laws you may find in force in the country. These laws, in some respects, differ from our own, as the laws of the various States of this Union vary on some points from the laws of each other. Some species of property are excluded by law in most of the States as well as Territories, as being unwise, immoral, or contrary to the principles of sound public policy. For instance, the banker is prohibited from emigrating to Minnesota, Oregon or California with his bank. The bank may be property by the laws of New York, but ceases to be so when taken into a State or Territory where banking is prohibited by the local law. So, ardent spirits, whisky, brandy, and all the intoxicating drinks, are recognized and considered as property in most of the States, if not all of them; but no citizen, whether from the North or South, or use it at his pleasure, in all the Territories, because it is prohibited by the local law-in Oregon, by the statutes of the Territory, and in the Indian country by the Acts of Congress. Nor can a man go there and take and hold
can take this species of property with him, and hold, sell,
his slave, for the same reason. These laws, and many others involving similar principles, are directed against no section, and impair the rights of no State of the Union. They are laws against the introduction, sale and use of specific kinds of property, whether brought from the North or the South, or from foreign countries."-Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 1, page 371.
"But, sir, I do not hold the doctrine that to exclude any species of property by law from any Territory, is a violation of any right to property. Do you not exclude banks from most of the Territories? Do you not exclude whisky from being introduced into large portions of the territory of the United States? Do you not exclude gaming-tables, which are property, recognized as such in the States where they are tolerated? And has any one contended that the exclusion of gambling-tables, and the exclusion of ardent spirits, was a violation of any constitutional privilege or right? And yet it is the case
in a large portion of the territory of the United States; but there is no outcry against that, because it is the prohibition of a specific kind of property, and not a prohibition against any section of the Union. Why, sir, our laws now prevent a tavern-keeper from going into some of the territories of the United States and taking a bar with him, and using and selling spirits there. The law also prohibits certain other descriptions of business from being carried on in the Territories. I am not, therefore. prepared to say that, under the Constitution, we have jot the power to pass laws excluding Negro Slavery from the Territories. It involves the same principles." and 1116, vol. 21, Cong. Globe, 1849-50. Speech of Senator Douglas, June 3d, 1850, pages 11 15,
On the same day, and in the same speech, Mr. Douglas referred to the Wilmot Proviso resolutions, passed by the Illinois Legislature, thus:
"My hands are tied upon one isolated point." "A SENATOR-Can you not break loose?" "MR. DOUGLAS-I have no desire to break loose. My opinions are my own, and I express them freely. My votes belong to those that sent me here, and to whom I am responsible. I have never differed with my constituency during seven years' service in Congress, except upon one solitary question. And even on that, I have no Constitutional difficulties, and have previously twice given the same vote, under peculiar circumstances; which is now required at my hands. I have no desire, therefore, to break loose from the instruction."-Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 1, page 373.
SLAVERY IN NEW MEXICO.
In the Senate, on the 12th day of February, 1850, on the subject of Slavery in the Territory of New Mexico, Mr. Douglas said,
"If the question is controverted here, I am ready to enter into the discussion of that question at any time, upon a reasonable notice, and to show that, by the constituted authority and constitutional authority of Mexico, Slavery, was prohibited in Mexico at the time of the
acquisition, and that prohibition was acquired by us with the soil, and that when we acquired the territory, we acquired it with that attached to it-that covenant running with the soil-and that must continue, unless removed by competent authority. And because there was a prohibition thus attached to the soil, I have always thought it was an unwise, unnecessary, and unjustifiable course on the part of the people of the free States, to require Congress to put another prohibition on the top of that one. It has been the strongest argument that I have ever urged against the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories, that it was not necessary for the accomplishment of their object."-Cong. Globe, vol. 22, part 1, page 343.
SLAVERY A MERE QUESTION OF DOLLARS AND
Shortly after the Illinois election of 1858, Mr. Douglas made a southern tour, stopping at St. Louis, Memphis, and New Orleans, and addressing the people at those places on political topics. He spoke at Memphis, on the 29th of November, and the following is an extract from his speech as reported phonographically in the Memphis Avalanche:
"Whenever a Territory has a climate, soil and productions, making it the interest of the inhabitants to encourage slave property, they will pass a slave code and give it encouragement. Whenever the climate, soil and productions preclude the possibility of slavery being profitable, they will not permit it. You come right back to the principle of dollars and cents. I do not care where the immigration in the southern country comes from; if old Joshua R. Giddings should raise a colony in Ohio and settle down in Louisiana, he would be the strongest advocate of Slavery in the whole South; he would find, when he got there, his opinion of Slavery would be very much modified; he would find on those sugar plantations that it was not a question between the white man and the negro but between the negro and the crocodile. He would say that between the negro and the crocodile he took the side of the negro; but between the negro and the white man, he would go for the white man."
On the 6th of December, 1858, Mr. Douglas spoke at New Orleans. The following quotation from his speech is taken from the report in the New Orleans Delta:
"I, in common with the Democracy of Illinois, accept the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Dred Scott case, as an authoritative exposition of the Constitution. Whatever limitations the Constitution, as expounded by the courts, imposes on the authority of a Territoria Legislature, we cheerfully recognize and respect in conformity with that decision. Slaves are recognized as property, and placed on an equal footing with all other property. Hence, the owner of slaves-the same as the owner of any other species of property-has a right to remove to a Territory and carry his property with him."
In the Senate, on the 23d of February, 1859, in a debate with Jeff. Davis, Mr. Douglas said:
other property. I recognize it as property under what
"I do not put Slavery on a different footing from is understood to be the decision of the Supreme Court. I argue that the owner of slaves has the same right to remove to the Territories and carry his slave property with him as the owner of any other species of property, and hold the same, subject to such local laws as the Territorial Legislature may constitutionally pass; and if any person shall feel aggrieved by such local legislation, he may appeal to the Supreme Court to test the validity of such laws. I recognize slave property to be on an equality with all other property, and apply the same rules to it. I will not apply one rule to slave property and another to all other kind of property."-Congressional Globe, 1858-9, part 2, page 1256.
THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.
THE decision or opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States on the question of Slavery in the Territories, and the power of Territorial Legislatures to exclude it, enters so largely into the political questions and discussions of the day, that it becomes desirable to know what the court decided. The following extracts will show the points of greatest importance in the decision. The case will be found at length in Vol. 19 of Howard's Reports. The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Chief Justice Taney, is preceded by head-notes of the Reporter, intended as a syllabus or epitome of the points decided, and from which we make the following extract (page 395):
The clause in the Constitution authorizing Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the government of the territory and other property of the United States, applies only to territory within the chartered limits of some one of the States when they were Colonies of Great Britain, and which was surrendered by the British Government to the old confederation of the States, in the treaty of peace. It does not apply to territory acquired by the present Federal Government, by treaty or conquest, from a foreign nation.
The United States, under the present Constitution, cannot acquire territory to be held as a colony, to be governed at its will and pleasure. But it may acquire territory which, at the time, has not a population that fits it to become a State, and may govern it as a Territory until it has a population which, in the judgment of Congress, entitles it to be admitted as a State of the Union. "While it remains a Territory, Congress may legislate over it within the scope of its constitutional powers, in relation to citizens of the United States, and may establish a Territorial Government, and the form of this local government must be regulated by the discretion of Congress, but with powers not exceeding those which Congress itself, by the Constitution, is authorized to exercise over citizens of the United States, in respect to their rights of persons or rights of property.
the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognizes as property.
"The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Go vernment to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise
any more authority over property of that description, than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind.
"The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citi
zen of the United States from taking with him his slaves is an exercise of authority over private property which when he removes to the Territory in question to reside, is not warranted by the Constitution, and the removal of the plaintiff, by his owner, to that Territory, gave
him no title to freedom."
[Senator Benjamin, of Louisiana, in a speech delivered on the 22d of May, 1560, states that this syllabus was prepared and written out by Chief Justice Taney himself.]
Following these notes we have the opinion of the Court, where, after deciding that Congress had no power to prohibit Slavery in a Territory, the chief justice proceeds as follows (pages 450 and 451):
"The powers over person and property of which we speak, are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them. And this prohibition is not confined to the States, but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it remaining under territorial government, as well as that covered by States. It is a total absence of power everywhere within the dominion of the United States, and places the citizens of a Territory, so far as these rights are concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the States, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the General Government might attempt, under the plea of implied or incidental powers. And if Congress itself cannot do this-if it is beyond the powers conferred on the Federal Government-it will be admitted, we presume, that it could not authorize a territorial government to exercise them. It could "The Territory thus acquired, is acquired by the confer no power on any local government established by people of the United States for their common and equal its authority, to violate the provisions of the Constitution. benefit, through their agent and trustee-the Federal "It seems, however, to be supposed that there is a Government. Congress can exercise no power over the difference between property in a slave and other prorights of persons or property of a citizen in the Terri-perty, and that different rules may be applied to it in tory which is prohibited by the Constitution. The Go- expounding the Constitution of the United States. And vernment and the citizen, whenever the Territory is the laws and usages of nations, and the writings of emiopen to settlement, both enter with their respective nent jurists upon the relation of master and slave, and rights defined and limited by the Constitution. their mutual rights and duties, and the powers which governments may exercise over it, have been dwelt upon in the argument.
"Congress has no right to prohibit the citizens of any particular State or States, from taking up their homes there, while it permits citizens of other States to do so. Nor has it a right to give privileges to one class of citizens which it refuses to another. The Territory is acquired for their equal and common benefit, and, if open to any, it must be open to all upon equal and the same
"Every citizen has a right to take with him into
"But, in considering the question before us, it must be borne in mind that there is no law of nations standing between the people of the United States and their government, and interfering with their relation to each other. The powers of the government, and the rights of the citizen under it, are positive and practical regulations, plainly written down. The people of the United
States have delegated to it certain enumerated powers, and forbidden it to exercise others. It has no power over the person or property of a citizen but what the citizens of the United States have granted. And no laws or usages of other nations, or reasoning of statesmen or jurists upon the relations of master and slave, can enlarge the powers of the Government, or take from the citizens the rights they have reserved. And if the Constitution recognizes the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a distinction, or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guaranties which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the Government.
"Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right of traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time, if the slave escapes from its owner. This is done in plain words, too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power, coupled with the duty, of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights."
SLAVERY IN NEW MEXICO.
IN 1859, the Territorial Legislature of New Mexico passed "An Act to provide for the protection of property in slaves." This act, without, in terms, legalizing Slavery in the Territory, proceeds at great length and particularity to protect slave-masters in the possession of their slaves, by enacting severe penalties against "stealing" or enticing them away, against "inciting them to discontent" or "insurrection," etc. The spirit of the Act may be gathered from the following extracts from its provisions:
"SEC. 25.-The Emancipation of Slaves within this Territory is totally prohibited."
PEONAGE, OR WHITE SERfdom. In January, 1859, the Territorial Legislature of New Mexico passed an act amendatory of the law relative to contracts between masters and servants," from which we extract the following:
"SEC. 1. When any servant shall run away from the service of his master. he shall be considered as a fugitive from justice, and in such case it shall be the duty of all officers of the Territory, judicial or ministerial, on being informed that such persons are within the limits of their jurisdiction, to ascertain whether such persons are runaway servants or not, and if they ascertain that they are, said officers shall immediately arrest them and put them to work at public labor, or hire them out to any person, so that they may be employed, with security, until their masters shall be informed thereof, in order that they may demand them, and to whom they shall immediately be delivered.
"SEC. 2. Every person of this Territory, either a contracted servant according to the law of contracts, or engaged on trips, or as shepherds, shall be compelled to serve for the time stipulated for in the contract; and any servant so contracted who shall fail to serve by abandoning his master or property placed under his care, shall be held responsible for all costs and damages which through his neglect may result to the owner.
SEC. 4. No Court of this Territory shall have juris
diction nor shall take cognizance of any cause for the correction that masters may give their servants for
neglect of their duties as servants, for they are conshould correct their neglect and faults; for as soldiers sidered as domestic servants to their masters, and they are punished by their chiefs, without the intervention of the civil authority, by reason of the salary they enjoy, an equal right should be granted those persons who pay their money to be served in the protection of their property: Provided, That such correction shall not be inflicted in a cruel manner with clubs or stripes."
On the 10th of May, 1860, Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, from the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, reported
A bill to disapprove and declare null and void all Territorial acts or parts of acts, heretofore passed by the Legislative Assembly of New Mexico, which establish, protect, or legalize involuntary servitude, or Slavery, within said Territory, except as a punishment for crime, upon due conviction.
This bill passed the House the same day by the following vote:
YEAS.-Messrs. Charles F. Adams, Aldrich, Alley, Ashley. Babbitt, Beale, Bingham, Blair, Blake, Brayton, Buffington, Burlingame, Burnham, Butterfield, Campbell, Carey, Case, Clark B. Cochrane, Colfax, Conkling, Covode, Dawes, Delano, Duell, Dunn, Edgerton, Edwards, Eliot, Ely, Farnsworth, Fenton, Ferry, Foster, Frank, French, Gooch, Grow, Gurley, Hale, Helmick, Hoard, Humphrey, Hutchins, Irvine, Junkin, Francis W. Kellogg, William Kellogg, Kenyon, Kilgore, Killinger, DeWitt C. Leach, Lee, Longnecker, Loomis, Lovejoy, Marston, McKean, McKnight, McPherson, Moorhead, Morse, Nixon, Olin, Palmer, Perry, Pettit, Porter, Potter, Rice, Christopher Robinson, Royce, Scranton, Sedgwick, Sherman, Somes, Spinner, Stanton, Stevens, William Stewart, Stratton, Tappan, Tompkins,__Train, Trimble, Vandever, Verree, Wade, Waldron, Walton, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, Israel Washburn, Wells, Wilson, Windom, Wood, and Woodruff.
All Republicans, 97.
NAYS.-Messrs. Green Adams, ADRAIN, Allen, Thomas L. Anderson, William C. Anderson, Ashmore, Avery, Barksdale, Barr, Barrett, Bocock, Bonham, Boyce, Branch, Bristow, Burch, Burnett, John B. Clark, Clopton, Cobb, John Cochrane, Cooper, Cox, James Craig, Crawford, Curry, H. Winter Davis, JOHN G. DAVIS, De Jarnette, Etheridge, Florence, Garnett, Gartrell, John T Harris, HASKIN, Hawkins, Holman, Houston, Howard, Hughes, Jackson, Jenkins, Jones, Keitt, Kunkel, Lamar, Landrum, Larrabee, James M. Leach, Leake, Logan, Love, Charles D. Martin, McQueen, Miles, Millson, Mont gomery, Sydenham Moore, Isaac N. Morris, Niblack, Pendleton, Peyton, Phelps, Pryor, Pugh, Reagan, Rey. nolds, RIGGS, James C. Robinson, Ruffin, SCHWARTZ, Scott, Simms, Singleton, William Smith, Stallworth, Stevenson, Stout, Taylor, Thayer, Thomas, Underwood, Vallangdigham, Vance, Webster, Whiteley, Winslow, Woodson, and Wright-89.
Democrats, in roman, 74; Americans, in italics, 8; Anti-Lecompton Democrats, in SMALL CAPS, 5; Independent (Reynolds, in roman), 1; Republicans (Thayer, in roman), 1. Total, 89. This bill failed to pass the Senate.