Page images
PDF
EPUB

slavery exists he becomes free. It must therefore look alone to local laws for its support.

I hold that the constitution, in and of itself, by its express language authorizes Congress to inhibit this institution in our Territories. I hold that the article in the constitution which gives to Congress the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting its Territories, includes full and absolute authority over this whole matter. What is the language of this clause of the constitution?

"Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States."

What is this grant of power?

1. Congress may dispose of its public domain.

2. It may make "all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States."

To dispose of is to give, grant, or convey the public lands; but to make all needful rules and regulations implies and carries with it full and ample power of legislation in all cases where the constitution does not otherwise prohibit. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of the terms "rules and regulations." The constitution itself interprets them. A law is defined to be "a rule of action prescribed by the supreme power in the State." The constitution gives Congress power to "regulate commerce "-to make "rules concerning captures "-" to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."

66

It also provides that persons escaping from one State into another shall not be discharged from service in consequence of any law or regulation therein." In this case both terms are used-" all needful rules and regulations "-to give the widest scope to the power. But it is said that the

concluding words in the clause quoted—" or other property ” -limit and confine our legislation over the territory to the same as property.

Grant hat our Territories are denominated as property, whether inhabited or not, does not the same power exist to pass all needful rules and regulations for its settlement and its final admission into the Union as a State? The power is clearly within the scope and meaning of that clause.

The history of the manner in which that clause became a part of the constitution would settle the question if there could be a reasonable doubt. In the articles of confederation by which the States were united before the constitution was formed no such power was found. This grant of power was therefore made in the forming of the constitution for the purpose of giving Congress the power. The doings of the convention and the declarations of Mr. Madison are clear upon this point.

But, aside from this view of the case we have the uninterrupted use of the power by the general government for about sixty years. Hardly a Congress has existed which has not acted upon this power, from 1787 to this time. This power has been exercised by Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and Van Buren. The Supreme Court of the United States has settled this question. Congress has already exercised the power and that power has been declared valid by the Supreme Court. In 1 Peters' Rep., 543, Chief Justice Marshall says:

"Whatever may be the source whence this power is derived the possession of it is unquestionable."

In 5th Peters' Rep., 44, again the court says:

"Rules and regulations respecting the Territories of the United States necessarily include complete jurisdiction."

Again the power is contained in the bill upon which we are acting. It continues the laws of Oregon in force for three months after the meeting of the legislature. It provides, in the Territories of California and New Mexico, that the legislative power shall not pass any laws on the subject of religion or slavery. Here we use the power in its broadest sense. We inhibit the use or exercise of any power on either of said subjects, and some others.

Could there be any doubt still remaining, and if we had no grant of power in the constitution at all there would yet be another source from which we must gather it. If the constitution was silent, as it is not, yet under that power which we can acquire we could most certainly govern. It matters little where you find the power to acquire; if you do acquire you must have the power to govern. The first is the major, the second is the minor proposition. It would not be good sense to contend that we have a power to acquire public domain and yet could not pass needful rules and regulations for its government. The case, when stated, is its own best argument. The sovereignty to acquire must contain the lesser power to govern.

These are briefly the reasons which force conviction upon my mind. Casuists have been known to deny their own existence and satisfactorily to prove it to their own minds. That may be a plausible and a practical doctrine when contrasted with the one that we have no power to govern our Territories. It is too late" at the noon of the nineteenth century to deny that right or for us to avoid the duty of acting.

[ocr errors]

Having the power to act, what is the responsible duty which I feel imposed upon me? (for I speak for none other). It is that I should exert all the power which the constitution

gives to exclude the institution of slavery from our Territories now free, because it is a social, moral, and political evil. That such is its character needs no argument to prove. They are conceded facts-supported by the declarations and admonitions of the best and wisest men of the South

"In thoughts that breathe, and words that burn."

I would resist that introduction of that institution in justice to a superior race of men-men who are capable of a higher state of social and political refinement. I would institute such governments as are best calculated to advance the true interests of our own Caucasian race and not degrade the dignity of labor by fastening upon it the incubus of slavery. I would resist it because I would not invoke or use the name of Democracy to strike down, as with the iron mace of a despot, the principles of social equality and freedom. I would not profane the sacred name of freedom while using it to impose a tyranny upon the minds or persons of men. Jefferson has said that "God has no attribute which can take sides with us in such a cause." The eloquent Pinckney has declared, "That the earth itself, which teems with profusion under the cultivating hand of the free-born laborer, shrinks into barrenness from the contaminating sweat of the slave."

Sir, my course is a plain one and clear from all doubt. Our position is unquestionable. We stand in defence of free soil and resist aggressive slavery. And we demand enactments for the protection of free soil against this aggression. We will not disturb that institution but we will stand in defence of the freedom of our soil as right in principle and beneficial to free white labor in all parts of our common country.

COUNT CAVOUR

OUNT CAMILLO BENSO DI CAVOUR was born at Turin in 1810. At tem

COUN

years of age he was sent to a military academy, where he gave especial attention to mathematics. At the age of sixteen he obtained a commission in the Engineers, which he resigned in 1831. During the next sixteen years he remained in private life, devoting himself to the promotion of his country's material interests, particularly in agriculture. He introduced great improvements on the estates of his family, and was one of the founders of the Agricultural Society at Piedmont in 1841. In the erection of manufactories and in the furtherance of railways he took a leading part. Toward the end of 1847 Cavour, in conjunction with some friends, started at Turin a newspaper to be the organ of their moderate liberal opinions, and took a seat in the legislative chamber as one of the members for the capital. From 1850 to 1852 he was an active member of Azeglio's administration, and from the last-named year until his death ina 1861 Cavour was, except for a short interval, the Prime Minister and virtual ruler of Sardinia. It was he who brought about the alliance of his country with the Western powers against Russia, and thereby secured her admission to the Congress subsequently held at Paris. In the autumn of 1858, at Plombières, he concerted with the French Emperor the programme of the war against Austria which took place in 1859. After the peace of Villafranca be so managed as to avoid a collision with France or Austria, while giving time for public opinion in Central and Southern Italy to declare itself in favor of union under Victor Emmanuel. Scarcely, however, had he seen the dream of his youth fulfilled in a united Italy than he died, after a few days' illness, in June, 1861. Cavour may not have been eloquent in the ordinary acceptation of the term, but, if the force of words is to be measured by their effect upon the will and conduct of men, he was one of the most powerful speakers that ever lived.

R

ROME AND ITALY

OME should be the capital of Italy. There can be no solution of the Roman question without the ac ceptance of this premise by Italy and by all Eu rope. If any one could conceive of a united Italy with any degree of stability, and without Rome for its capital, I would declare the Roman question difficult, if not im

« PreviousContinue »