| OCR Text |
Show 354: 'J'JJE AGI'l'A'l1ION lN 1847 --GO. tory, why were they not employed to authorize legislation over the District? A.nd to rever. c the order of the inquiry, if it wa int ndcd to confer upon Congress the power to legi ·late over 1 crri Lory, why was it not gi vcn in the snme cxpres terms as in authorizing legi 'lat ion for the District? From this view, there is li Ltlc doubt that a strict con ·Lruction would ucny to Congress the right to legislate for the domestic aifu.irs of tile people of territory without their consent. Congress has, however, upon various occasions, ~xercised legi laLive power over the subject, especially in incorporaLinrr into the law organizing territories the provisions of th: Ordinance of l7 ~7; and this has been acquiesced in by the people of the territory. This Ordinance was framed under the old confederacy, for the government of the Northwestern 'rcrritory, and the sixth article forbade slnvery or involu11tary servitude therein. Its validity has often been questioned, and its adoption was pronounced by l\1r. l\1adison to be u without the least color of constitutional law." But whether authorized or not, having been passed before the adoption of the Constitution, the act has no authority as a precedent for like practice under it. Extract from the speech of IIcnry Clay, in the United States Senate, February 5th anu 6th, 1850. Mr. Clay said : When I came to consider the subject, nnd to compare the provisions of the ]inc of 360 30'-the Missouri compromise line-with the plan which I have proposed for the accommodation of this question, said I to myEielf, if I offer the line of 36° 30', to interdict 1hc question of slavery north of it, and to leave it unsettlcu and open south of it, I offer that which is illusot·y to the onth-I offer that which \Yill deceive them, if they suppose that slavery will be received south of that line. It is better for t.hem-I said to myself-it is better for the South, that there Til~ A.GIT A'riON IN 1847 --GO. 355 should be non-action as to slavery both north and south of the line-far better that there should he non-action both sides of the line, than that there should be action by the interdiction on the one :icle, without actim1 for the admission u on the oLh r ,·itle of the l in c. IH it not so ? What \s t:ere craincd by the South, if the Mi.·souri line is extcndecl to the Pacific, with the iulen1 iction of slavery north of it? Why, the very argument whi ch has been m?sl often ancl most seriously u rp;cu by the South has been tlns : we do not want Collgrcss to 1egi:late upon tllc subject of slavery at all; you Olwo hL not to toueh it. You have no power ove.r it. I do not concur, as is well known from what I have ~ud upon that question, in this view of the subject; but that is the Southern argument. W c do not want you, say they, to legislate npon tho subject of sl.avcry. Bnt if yon adopt .the Missouri line, and thus intcrdtcl slavery north of that lllle, you uo Icgi. latc upon the. subject of slavery, .ancl you. lrgislate for its restriction w1thout a correspondmg rqtttvalcnt of legislati on south of that line for iU; a(1tni Hsion; for I insist that if there be lt·gi ·!at ion int nli •tino· slavery north of the line, then the principles of equality wou\<1 requi re thn.t there shoulu be legislation admitting slavery south of the line. I have said that I never could. vote for it myself, and I repeat that I never can, and never will vote, aml uo earthl.y power will ever make me vole, to ~pr~a<.l slavery over :er.ntory where it does not exist. Sttll, 1f there be a. mnJonty who are for interdicting slavery north of the line, there otl'rht to be a majority, if jnsLicc is done to the outh, to ad~ it slavery south of the line. .An<l if there be a majority to accompli h both of these pnrposcs, nllhonp;h I cannot concur in their action, yet I . hall be 0110 of the la:t Lo create any disturbance; I shall be one of the Hrst to ac~uiescc in that legislation, althongh it is contrary to my own Judgment and to my own cons<:ienco. |
