title: Speech of Hon. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina, on the subject of congressional legislation, as to the rights of property in the territories, delivered in the Senate of the United States, May 7 & 8, 1860.
text: ^^s. ++ & . »• ' • ~0 ^ ^ A> ...... ** • J ^*^V-fc*- O 3r -•••^ <3 <& <£ *«&' ^ A* ^ W .♦***. vT«\A 4 o * » ^••••\^ 5°^ :- ^ < >\^ SPEECH OF HOi THOMAS L. CIMMAN, OF NORTH CAROLINA, OJV THE SUBJECT OF Congressional Legislation, AS TO THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY IN THE TERRITORIES, X_ DELIVERED IN THE gtnnU of the United $Mc$ 9 MAY 7 & 8, I860. Baltimore . . Printed by John Murphy & Co. Publishers, Booksellers, Piunters & Stationers, Marble Building, 182 Baltimore street. 18 6 0. Printed and Sold at $10 per 1000 by Murphy & Co., 182 Baltimore-st., Baltimore. til j List of Speeches, &c, Printed and Publi^ked by Murphy & Co. Jfon- Interference by Congress with Slavery in the Territories. SPFFCH of Hon S A. DOUGLAS, of Illinois, in the Senate, May 15th & \6th, 1860. orcein in nu«. s 40 .pages— $-2 51) per 100— $20 per 1,000 POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY in the TERRITORIES. The DEMOCRAT1 C RECORD The nurpoNe of this Publication, is to exhibit the Democratic Record, as it was made by the Reptescntattve men of the Party, on the Doctrine "'^^f^^^^ lfi00 SPEECH of Hon REVERDY JOHNSON, 'of Maryland, delivered before the Polit- ical friends of Hon. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, nt a meeting in Faneuil Hall, Boston, June 7th, I860. To which is added the Letter of Hon. Reveidy Johnson, to the Chairman of the Douglas Meeting in New York, May 22d, 1860. " 16 pages-$lO per J,uuu REMARKS on POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, as Maintained and Denied, respectively, by J DD0E DOUGLAS, and Att.«»t 0«ul Blaoe. By * M J™« ; m _^ ADDRESS of the NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE to the Democracy of the United States. " . " " 16 page s-$ 10 per 1,000 DOUGLAS' SPEECH, on INVASION of STATES, - 16 pages— $10 per 1,000 DOUGLAS' SPEECH, in reply to SEWARD, - - 8 pages— $5 per 1,000 SPEECH of Hon. THOMAS J. BARR, of New York, in vindication of Catholic and adopted Citizen., - - - 16 pages-$10 per 1 ,uOO ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S RECORD on the Slavery Question, *^|^J^ verl000 CLLNGMAN ON SENATE RESOLUTIONS, - - 16 pages-$10 per 1,000 Address orders to MURPHY & CO., Printers & Publishers, 1H2 Baltimore street, Baltimore, Md. Or J. J. JONES, 350 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D. C. SPEECH. The Senate having under consideration the resolutions offered by Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, Wr. CLINGMAN said : j Mr. President: Most of the speech of the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis) I cordially ap- prove. There are one or two points, however, in which I differ with him ; and notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, if Senators will indulge me, I shall endeavor to state them. If 1 under- stand his resolutions aright, they contemplate intervention by Congress for the protection, in the Territories, of property in slaves. For some years past we have stood on the doctrine of non-in- tervention, and there is no middle ground which we can take. The Senator from Mississippi says that he does not approve of a slave code. Well, sir, what are we to understand by a slave code ? I take it to be legislation to protect or to regulate property in slaves. If you depart from the principle of non-intervention, and legislate to protect property in slaves, you necessarily make some sort of a slave code, and it may be either a short one or a long one. I am opposed to departing, at this time, from the policy of non-intervention. I was not one of the original advocates of that measure. On the contrary, twelve or fifteen years ago, in common with the great body of the South, I maintained the opinion that the Federal Government had com- plete jurisdiction over the Territories ; and I voted for the extension of the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific. That necessarily implied two things : first, that Congress had power to pro- hibit slavery in the Territories ; second, that it had power to establish or protect it ; because the original Missouri compromise line declared, in the exact terms of the Wilmot proviso, that north of 36° 30' slavery or involuntary servitude never should exist, while it was allowed to remain south of it. Every one of us who voted for the extension of that line thereby necessarily admitted that this government had authority to establish or protect slavery in a Territory, and also to prohibit it. We were all sworn to support the Constitution : and if we had denied the power, we could not have given the vote. I am free to say that I subsequently changed my opinion ; and prior to the decision in the Dred Scott case I published my views in accordance with the doctrine laid down in that decision, as I understand it. That, however, is merely personal to myself, and cannot affect the Senate. But, sir, in 1847, General Cass brought forward the non-intervention doctrine. He was sus- tained by Daniel S. Dickinson and by John C. Calhoun, and other distinguished statesmen ; and though I was then an opponent of it, I am free to say that I believe its advocates were perhaps nearer right than I was. So remarkable was the statement of Mr. Calhoun at that time that I shall ask the indulgence of the Senate for a single moment while I read a few extracts from his speech. Some of his remarks were almost prophetic, and anything from him has great weight with gentle- men of the school to which the Senator from Mississippi and myseif belong. In his opening re- marks in his speech of June 27th, 1848, he said : "There is a very striking difference between the position in which the slaveholding and non-slave- holding States stand in reference to the subject under consideration. The former desire no action of the Government ; demand no law to give them any advantage in the Territory about to be established ; are willing to leave it and other Territories belonging to the United States open to all their citizens, so long as they continue to be Territories, and when they cease to be so, to leave it to their inhabitants as may suit them, without restriction or condition, except that imposed by the Constitution as a pre- requisite for admission into the Union. In short, they are willing to leave the whole subject where the Constitution and the great and fundamental principles of self-government place it." What further did he say? "Nor should the North fear that, by leaving it where justice and the Constitution leave it, she would be excluded from her full share of the Territories. In my opinion, if it be left there, climate, soil, and other circumstances, would fix the line between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States in about 36 deg. 30 min. It may zig-zag a little to accommodate itself to circumstances: sometimes passing to the north and at others to the south of it ; but that would matter little, and would be more satisfactory to all. and tend less to alienation between the two great seccions than a rigid, straight, artificial line, prescribed by an act of Congress.". "But T go further, and hold that justice and the Constitution are the easiest and safest guards on which the question can be settled, regarded in reference to party. It may be settled on that groind simply by non-action — by leaving the Territories free and open to the emigration of all the woi Id, so ling as they continue so ; and when they become States, to adopt whatever constitution they please, w to the single restriction to be republican, in order to their admission into the Union. If a party cannit safely take this broad and solid position, and successfully maintain it, what other can it take aid maintain ?" Remember this was a,; ( arnest exhortation to the Democratic party, prior to the assemblage of its national convention in that year. "If it cannot maintain itself by an appeal to the great principles of justice, the Constitution, and self government, to what other. sulliciently strong to uphold them in public opinion, can they appeal? I greatly mistake the character of the people of this Union, if such an appeal would not prove successful, if either party should have the magnanimity to step forward and boldly make it. It would, in my opinion, be received with shouts of approbation by the patriotic and intelligent in every quarter. There is a deep t'eeliny pervading the country that the Union and our political institutions are in dan- ger, which such a course would dispel." — Appendix to Congressional Globe, first session Thirtieth Con- gress, p. 872. That position was taken by him and others, and maintained, and gradually obtained strength until, in 1850, it received a majority of the votes of the southern members and of the Democratic party, and became apart of the public law of the country. I hold, sir, that this was emphatically a compromise between the sections ; and I propose now to give several reasons why ] am for main- taining it, although at the time it was adopted I was opposed to it. 1 place this view in the fore- ground ; northern gentlemen, be it recollected, insisted on the Wilmot proviso, to prohibit slavery in the Territories, and we of the South claimed protection. When the Wilmot proviso was brought up, there were only seven or eight Democrats in the House of Representatives whe resisted it. Among them I recollect the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas) and his colleague at that time, who is now a member of the other House, and who was voted for at an early day of the session for Speaker, (Mr. McClernand.) Excepting those gentlemen, I believe, there is no one else now in the public councils from the North who opposed it. Many men of the North said, "if we are to legislate to fix the status of the Territories, as we represent free communities, we will carry out their views : but if you think proper to turn over the whole question to the people, under the Con- stitution, we will join you in that, and vote down the Wilmot proviso." That was subsequently accomplished ; and in 1852, when the national conventions adopted it, it became the settled policy, of the country, and those in the South who had opposed it acquiesced and adopted it. Now, Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi argues that that policy of non-intervention did not mean to deny the right to protect ; that it merely pledged Congress not to establish or to prohibit slavery, but did not deny protection to it. 1 might, by adverting to the discussions of that day, show that a different construction was then put upon it by gentlemen generally ; but I have some authority here which binds the whole party to which that Senator and myself belong, and which, I think, ought to be conclusive — I mean the last clause of the thirty-second section of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, which the administration of that day, of which he was a member, made an administration measure, and which received the support of the Democratic members of the two Houses ; and 1 ask the particular attention of the Senate to the language : "That the Constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United States, except the oiphih section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 0, 1820, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void ; it being the true intent and mean- ing of this act not to legislate slaver}- into any Territory or State nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." The Missouri line was repealed ; and why? Because it was unconstitutional or wrong in itself? Ni"i, sir; but because it was "inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery m the States and Territories." I admit, if the act had stopped there, there might have been some plausibility in the argument, but what is the conclusion ? "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force anv law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of 6th March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery." That is, Congress would not only not interfere itself,; would not only not allow its own statutes to stand in the way, but would not revive any old law which might have been in force by which slavery was protected in that Territory. I submit, therefore, that upon a fair construction of that act, you can come to no other conclusion except that Congress intended to abnegate the exercise of any power over this question in the Ter- ritories, and to deny its purpose to legislate, whether to establish or prohibit, or to restrict or pro- tect slavery in the Territories ; and in 185b*, in our platform, we expressly declared the doctrine, "non-intervention with slavery in State or Territory, and in the District of < 'olumbia." Where did that leave it? Congress left it, of course, in the States, to the States ; in the Territories — .there being no law of Congress left, for that repeal removed the last act of Congress which bore upon them — it left it unaffected in any way by Congressional legislation ; and in the district of Columbia slavery had already been established, and was protected by law, so that it left it there untouched. I say this declaration received the unanimous assent of all the States represented in the Cincinnati convention. I happened to be a member of that convention — the onlyiconvention of the kind which I believe I ever had the honor of being in ; and 1 may have a little personal pride in that matter, but 1 am very sure 1 am not mistaken when I say it was unanimously adopted by all the delegates there assembled, alike from the North and the South. We also, out of abundance of caution to meet the views of our opponents, voted that every new State should be admitted with or without slavery, as it pleased. Then, Mr. President, where do we stand ? The Democracy of the North and the South agreed upon this principle of non-intervention. If there ever was a compromise made under this Govern- ment, that was one. Each side surrendered something. We surrendered our claim to protection ; our Northern friends abandoned the Wilmot proviso, and everything looking to it, and met us on common ground. Though I was not an original party to the agreement, 1 am bound to it by my acquiescence ; and 1 hold that neither section can honorably depart from it without some pressing necessity, which does not now exist. 1 know it is said that the Dred Scott decision has modified the question. I confess I do not think so. 1 fully agree to the decision in the sense in which the Senator from Mississippi explains it ; but let us test it for a moment in this way ; in that decision the court says the Missouri com- promise line, or the Wilmot proviso, is unconstitutional. Granted ; but suppose they had decided the other way, and said it was constitutional, would the northern men have had a right to come forward and say, "this question being settled in our favor, the Supreme Court having admitted that the Wilmot proviso is constitutional, we now want to go in for intervention against slavery? I am sure every Democrat in the South would have said at once, "though you have this power, you are not bound to exercise it." Well suppose the court decided that Congress have the right to protect, and not to prohibit, can we honorably and fairly, without a great pressing necessity, abandon the policy of non-intervention ? I think not. Now, is there any such necessity ? The Senator himself admits that there is not. His colleague (Mr. Brown) insists that we ought to have a slave code or congressional legislation on the subject; but the Senator from Mississippi, to whom I am replying, says thai there is no such necessity at this time. Then why depart from the principle of non intervention? lam free to admit that if, in an unwise moment, a man makes a compromise that is ruinous to him, he may, under great ne- 6 cessity, avoid it, perhaps ; but T deny that any such necessity exists in this case ; and the highest evidence of it is that the Senator from Mississippi, who sits behind me, (Mr. Brown,) has been striving for the last three or four months to get a positive act passed to protect slavery in Kansas, and he has never yet found a second for it. If any one Senator upon this floor, notwithstanding the urgent and eloquent appeals of that gentleman, has declared his willingness to vote for it, I have not heard him say so, and I do not believe there is such a one. And yet everybody knows that Kansas has lately refused all protection to slave property. If gentlemen, therefore, intend to stand up for all their rights to tin fullest extent, why not at once come up and pass a law to pro- tect slaves in Kansas ? They show, by their conduct, that they do not believe that any real neces- sity exists in fact for departing from non-intervention. I say, then, Mr. President, that in my judgment no necessity exists for an abandonment of the compromise : but the Senator proposes to make a declaration that we shall do it in a future contin- gency. I have no doubt of the power of the Government, but why make that declaration ? A de- claration of the Senate binds nobody. These are naked resolutions; they are not laws ; they carry no force to the country except what, may be derived from the soundness of the opinions advanced in them. They will not control the action of the courts. They will not, perhaps, change the opinion of a single man in this country. Why pass them? I think I shall show, before I take my seat, some very valid and strong reasons why we should not do so. My first objection, then, is that the system of non-intervention is a compromise, and that no ne- cessity exists to abandon it, as I have already stated. I come now to my second objection. Dur- ing the discussion of 1850, the advocates of non-intervention said, if you adopt it, if you leave the question to the Territorial Legislature, they may pass laws to protect slave property. I resisted it. I made speech after speech to show that the Mexicans were hostile to us ; that, they were not accustomed to slavery, and might legislate against it ; but what has been the result? New Mexico has passed the most stringent slave code. There is, perhaps, not a State in the Union that has, by law, protected slave property more securely than the Territory of New Mexico, which reaches from Texas to the Gulf of California, and extends up to the 38th degree of north latitude. We were content with the line of 36° 30', we were willing to run the Missouri line to the Pacffic, and abolish slavery absolutely north of 3G° 30', and take a mere implication without an express pro- tection south of it. Sir, practically by non-intervention, we have got more than we asked for; we have got a larger amount of territory than we should have obtained under the Missouri compro- mise line. Gentlemen may say, perhaps, that Kansas has legislated against us. 1 grant it; but we should not have got Kansas at all under the Missouri compromise. Kansas only comes down to the thirty-seventh parallel, the whole Territory being north of the Missouri compromise line. Besides, while New Mexico has legislated in our favor, and the same thing, I believe, is true of Utah- Mr. GREEN. I wish to correct the Senator in a matter of fact. Utah has not passed any law protecting slavery. They have an apprentice system, which expires in a very short time. Mr. CLINGMAN. 1 am obliged to the gentleman for the suggestion; but 1 consider the fact with reference to Utah immaterial, because it lies on a table land several thousand feet above the sea, very far north, reaching up to the forty-second parallel, and having a very cold climate. Surely the Senator dpi s not deny the fact that, as far as New Mexico is concerned, we have got everything we desire, and that it covers more territory than we claimed in 1850. I was about to say, though, that even jm Kansas slave property was protected by the Territorial Legislature for several years, but latelj dhey haVe legislated against it. 1 believe that, but for the extraordinary excitement which grew tip out of the repeal of the Missouri restriction, the Territory of Kansas never would have legislated adversely to us, but we all know that a great crowd were sent in there from the North, with extreme anti-slavery views, and the result of the excitement there has been legislation against us ; but we are no worse off" in that respect than if we had never repealed the restriction, and we are much better off as far as the Territory of New Mexico is concerned, by adopting non-intervention. Mr. CRITTENDEN. Will the gentleman give way to a motion to adjourn? Mr. CLINGMAN. As it is late, if there is no objection to the question going over until to-mor- row, it will be more agreeeble to me. Mr. CRITTENDEN. I move that the Senate adjourn. The motion was agreed to and the Senate adjourned. TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1860. Mr. President : I hope I shall not find it necessary to occupy much of the time of the Senate. When I commenced last evening 1 thought I should be able to conclude very soon ; but finding that the explanations which I wished to make would take a little more time than I had anticipated, I gave way for a motion to adjourn. I will now express, as rapidly as I can, my impressions on this question ; and it is, perhaps, due to myself to say that, on the 9th of January, 1857, I pub- lished a letter indicating my views on the whole subject, in which 1 took the position that this Government had a right and was bound to protect property in the Territories, but could not abol- ish or exclude it, and that a Territorial Legislature could have no greater power than Congress, which created the Territory. In that letter I said : '•The right to legislate over the Territories of the United States, has, by some persons, been derived from that clause of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States. Others maintain that, as an incident to the power to admit new States, the right to prepare the Territory for the condition of a State authorizes legislation. 'If neither of these clauses should be deemed sufficient to authorize legislation, then it may be con- tended that, in the first place, it must now be admitted as a settled matter, that the Government of the United .states is capable of acquiring territory by treaty, conquest or discovery, and of holding or or exercising authority over the same. But the Government derives all of its powers from the Consti- tution; and, but for that instrument, the President, the Senators, and members of Congress, would have no more power over the Territory than any other set of people three hundred in number. "It is, however, universally admitted that the Government of the United States is only a trustee of power, or agent for the people of the United States, and must exercise its authority for their benefit. As the Government derives its power solely from the Constitution, it cannot go beyond that instrument, and is bound by its limitations therefore. It could not, for example, in the Territory, grant titles of nobility, establish religion, abridge the freedom of speech or of the press, &c. Whichever of these three sources of power be assumed as the true one, it seerns clear that Congress and the President, in holding the territory, or exercising jurisdiction over it, only can legislate to the extent required to pro- tect the interest of the Government and of the people of the United State3. The preservation of its own property, and the protection of the property and personal rights of the people, limit the ex- tent of its powers. It is bound, however, to legislate, or 'make needful rules,' to that extent. "A B enters the Territory with his wife, child, horse and slave. These are taken away from him by force, and he is himself imprisoned. .Now, it is obvious that there should be laws to protect his own liberty, and also his right to the possession of his wife, child, horse, and slave- Hence, it follows, that there must be power in Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery as well as in relation to wives, children and horses. It is clear that the Government has power to protect these rights. Can it go further? The Constitution declares, 'that private property shall not be taken for public use (even) without just compensation.' The Government cannot, therefore, take any property, or what is the same thing, re- lease another from an obligation to me, which is in the nature of property. While it may protect, it cannot destroy personal rights. "It must be remembered, however, that every slave in the United States is necessarily the property of some person; but as the Government of the United States cannot destroy or take away property, it cannot, of course, change the relation of any one in these respects. If a person is under obligation to serve me for life, or a shorter term, he cannot be released from that obligation by Congress, because it cannot take my property by any law that it can pass, whether the law is to operate in a State or Territory. In the latter it is bound to preserve, that is, protect, existing rights; but it cannot de- stroy them. If, therefore, its power is limited to the preservation of rights now in being, such a law as the Missouri compromise, which would destroy rights that already exist in certain citizens, would be unconstitutional, since it might, and in fact must, necessarily interfere with property in slaves. It seems to me that these propositions cover the whole ground of controversy ; and hence, if they are held to be irue, Congress cannot, 'except for public use,' and with 'just compensation, ' deprive any person of an obligatien on another, or declare that the owner's right to his slave shall not be recognized in any Territory of the United States. And if Congress has not the power itself, then it cannot delegate it ; and hence the Kansas-Nebraska bill does not carry with it any such power." I yesterday alluded to the opinions of Mr. Calhoun. It is perhaps right that I should say that, in the very same speech from which I read, he expressed the opinion that a Territorial Legislature had no right to exclude slavery, or to legislate against it. I concur with him in that. He also, I think almost uniformly, perhaps invariably, held that Congress had a right ffnd ought to protect all property in the Territories subject to its jurisdiction ; but he waived that right in his speech, to which 1 referred, and in his support of the Clayton compromise bill, which passed at the same session of Congress, and only a few weeks afterwards, he again waived it. Now, sir, one other remark in connection with the first point which I made. During the dis- cussion of 1850, I insisted that if the gentlemen would come forward and repeal the Missouri re- striction, and throw open all the territory, I would agree to take it ; and in fact, in a speech in the House of Representatives, I agreed to vote for this principle if they would remove the restriction up to the fortieth parallel, from 36° 30', considering that sufficient compensation. It was not done, however, and I opposed the scheme. But, in 1854, the northern portion of the Democratic party, with great magnanimity and with great risk to themselves, came up and repealed this old restric- tion. In doing that they had to encounter prejudices at home ; they had to take upon their shoulders the responsibility of repealing a line which had been regarded as sanctified by thirty-four years' existence, and which was called a compromise. They had the manliness, in carrying out this principle of non-intervention, to come forward and repeal that line. Why? It was in order thai all the territory might be placed upon the same footing ; and I hold that after that sacrifice upon their part ; that willingness to carry out this compromise, begun in 1850, indorsed in 1852 by the Dem- ocratic and also by the Opposition convention, we of the South are under the highest obligation to stand to it. Now, sir, I make no reflection on any honorable Senator who differs from me on this question. I do them all the justice to say that, if they looked upon it as I do, as a compromise, I am very sure they would not seek to disturb it. Taking the view of it I do, believing that the two parties settled down upon non-intervention, I feel it to be my duty to adhere to it in the ab- sence of any great pressing necessity which would justify its abandonment. Mr. President, what are the points of difference between the two parties ? The Senator from Mississippi, if I read his resolutions aright, does not propose to favor intervention by Congress to protect slavery in the Territories at this time ; but he declares if it should turn out hereafter that the existing laws are not sufficient to protect it under the Constitution, he is then for legislation. What do those who oppose his resolutions say ? The Senator from Ohio (Mr. Pugh) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas) say that if, hereafter, the courts shall make decisions which eannot be carried out without legislation, they will legislate to carry them out. The Senator from Mississippi says that the Dred Scott decision has settled the question, and he wants a declaration that we mean to legislate in future. These gentlemen, admitting, as they must, that the judges have, in the Dred Scott case, expressed their opinion that a Territorial Legislature cannot legislate adversely to slavery, say, however, that point in fact was not presented in the case ; but that, if such was the settled opinion of the court, when a proper case is directly presented it will so decide ; and they stand ready to carry out that decision of the court when it shall be made. Then, do we not all come together on the same point? The Senator from Mississippi says that if the court makes decisions which cannot be enforced without legislation, he is for legislation. These gentlemen say that when the court does make decisions, they will submit to them and carry them eut. J t seems, therefore, that they are traveling in lines that will converge and come together at a certain point. Then, why dispute now in advance? This may be readily illustrated. Suppose 1 have a controversy with a neighbor about the title to a piece of land. Neither of us is in a hurry to have possession. We are willing to await the decision of the court. He comes to me, however, and says : "I find that the court, in express- ing an opinion in another case, which I admit is not like ours, and does not present the same facts, has declared, nevertheless, that in a case like yours and mine my title would be good, and there- fore I wish you to give me a deed acknowledging my title to be good, though I do not want pos- session now, and am willing to wait for it until the case is decided. " 1 reply to him, "I admit that the court may have expressed such an opinion, but the point between us did not arise in that ease, was not argued by my counsel or any other counsel ; all I can say to you is, if that be the opinion of the court,«of course, when they decide our case, they will decide in your favor, and I shall then surrender to you ; but I am not willing to assume beforehand that the court will so de- cide." It seems to me, then, Mr. President, that in the present condition of the case there is no necessity for ill-feeling on either side, or for declarations in advance. My second point was, that New Mexico had already established a slave code and given us more erritory than we should have gotten under the Missouri line, if carried out. I cuine now to the third point, and that is, what has grown out of the decision of the court in the Dred Scott case. When this subject was under debate in 1850, we of the South objected to non-intervention on the ground that it would leave the Mexican law in force ; and inasmuch as the Supreme Court had maintained the opinion in a case from Florida, and perhaps in some other decisions, that where territory was acquired the local law might remain in force, we were disinclined to take non-inter- vention without a repeal of the Mexican law. During that interesting controversy, we held a cau- cus of southern members, consisting of Senators and Representatives, and on that occasion the Senator from Georgia, who usually sits behind me, (iMr. Toombs,) introduced a proposition into our caucus that we would support the compromise measures if they would repeal the Mexican laws and substitute the British colonial laws which prevailed in our colonies prior to the Revolu- tion. That was adopted, and that gentleman moved it in the House of Representatives as an amendment, but it was defeated. I am free to say that if at that time we had been satisfied that the court would hold that under the Constitution slave property could exist and be protected in the Territories, without reference to local laws, I am very sure we should all have voted for the compromise of 1850. If it be true, as the Senator from Mississippi contends, that the Dred Scott decision settles the question and supports the right of a slaveholder in a Territory, then there is another strong reason why we should acquiesce in non-intervention at this time. This, therefore, is a third reason ; and I now propose to give one or two others why a person like myself, who originally did not adopt it, may now be for it. It has been adopted as the policy of the country for ten years. Can we now pass through reso- lutions or bills to establish or protect slavery in the Territories? That is the question. Recollect, it is only in a case where the people of a Territory are hostile to our rights ; it is only where they are so hostile that they refuse to protect us, or even legislate against us that we have been called upon to exercise this power. Nobody pretends that there is any necessity for our going into New Mexico, or other Territories that are favorable to us, with this legislation. Therefore, the ques- tion presented is simply this : suppose a Territory is hostile to us, and its Legislature will not pro- tect slave property, or even legislates against it, will Congress intervene ? First, is there any po- litical possibility that we can pass such a law through the two Houses ? We have had a test on the question already. Here is the Territory of Kansas, which not only does not give us any pro- tection, but which, I am informed, has legislated adversely. One Senator from Mississippi, (Mr. Brown,) has brought forward a proposition to interfere for the protection of slavery in that Terri- tory, and yet he has not gotten one southern man to back him ; and if you were to submit the ques- tion to a body of southern Senators I have very great doubt whether you would get them to agree to such legislation. Why is it? If we of the South are willing to impose the institution—that is the common phrase — on a Territory against the wish of a majority, why is it that gentlemen do not come up and support the proposition of the Senator from Mississippi? Is it because it is felt that it is politically and morally wrong to interfere in this way? Is that it, or is it be- cause gentlemen know that such legislation would be unavailing? I ask why we have not induced southern Senators yet to come up and vote for the establishment or protection of slavery in Kan- sas, notwithstanding the adverse legislation of the territorial authorities ? I leave every gentleman to give his own reasons. But suppose every southern Senator went for it, we could not pass it ; and how many northern men are there who are ready to vote for it? How many northern mem- bers are there in the other House for it ? It will take thirty northern Representatives to pass through such a bill. We all know what a clamor was raised two or three years ago by the Abo- litionists—falsely raised— when it was alleged that Congress intended to force slavery upon the Territory of Kansas, whether it wished it or not. Now, if we undertake to protect or maintain slavery in a Territory against the wish of the inhabitants, I ask you how many northern men are likely'to sustain us in it? At present we have *no southern men for it that I know of except one. There may be others ;" but they have not thought proper after a debate of three months to state the fact. But suppose they come up and do it, how many men will you get from the North ? I hold that it is apolitical impossibility that we should pass such a measure ; and, as 1 shall present- ly endeavor to show, nothing but mischief will result from the attempt. But suppose there were nothing in this fourth objection of mine, and that Congress should actu- ally pass a law of that sort, how much would it be worth in a Territory where the people are thoroughly adverse to it and unwilling that the institution should exist or be protected ? If«J-ou 10 are going to enforce the law, you must send either an army or an immense number of officials, and scatter them all over the Territory. Gentlemen know how difficult it is to recover a runaway negro from the free States; From some of these States you can only get him by the help of an army. It was stated the other day, in a speech by a member of the Republican party, who [ sup- pose, knows — I mean Mr. Raymond, who was once Lieutenant Governor of New York — that of the runaways who went to the North, not one in five hundred ever was recovered ; and yet it is much easier to send a posse or a body of troops there to get a single negro at one point and return him, than it would be to support an army and protect it over a whole Territory. But, neverthe- less, suppose you could maintain it there, what then? Everybody on our side of the House admits that when they make a State constitution, they have a right to exclude it. Have you, or I or any other man, the least doubt that when such a people made a State constitution they would make it anti-slavery? Any community on earth who had forced upon them a system to which they were adverse would inevitably throw it off when they could. What would be the result ? Every State brought into the Union under these circumstances would not only be a free State, but would probably be abolitionized ; probably strong anti-slavery features would be thrown into its constitution. What advantage is that to us of the South, I ask, gent lemen ? We would like to have slave States ; they would give us additional strength in the two Houses of Congress ; but slave Territories are worth nothing to us — they give us no strength. 1 have now, Mr. President, given some five reasons why, in my judgment, even if non-interven- tion had not been right originally, it would be the true policy now ; but gentlemen say, if it is our right to have protection, let us insist upon it. I take it for granted that every man believes he has rights which he cannot insist on at all times. No man will insist on an abstract, remote sort of right which he can turn to no practical advantage, and thereby merely incur very great losses. If a man believed that he had a certain valuable property in the moon, nobody would expect him to attempt to get at it there either by balloons or otherwise. Everybody would regard it as an impossibility, and any expenditure of time and money that he made to effect it would be regarded as thrown away. I am free to say that, in my judgment, there is about as much probability of effecting a thing of that sort, as there is of getting through Congress and maintaining a system of legislation to protect slavery in Territories that are so utterly hostile to it that they make their Legislature act against it, and then to bring them in as slaveholding States. One is a political, the other a physical impossibility. I think we shall lose by the operation ; and this brings me to another class of objections. If we take this system of congressional intervention for the protection of slavery, we must act in opposition to the settled policy of the Democratic party for the last ten years. Then you neces- sarily divide the party. The movement will not divide our opponents ; they will all stand as they now do, firmly united against us ; but we shall divide our own party into two sections, and ! beg leave to call the attention of Senators to the fact that, on looking over the resolutions adopted in the Democratic conventions of the free States — and I have examined all of them but one — every single one of them, as far as I know or believe, has declared in favor of the Cincinnati platform, and non-intervention. So have many of the southern States likewise. If we adopt a different policy, all these gentlemen must change their ground at once, or be driven out of the party. I ask you, Mr. President, can they maintain themselves before their opponents under this disadvantage? Suppose, for example, the delegation from Pennsylvania go home from a convention where the policy of intervention has been adopted : how will their opponents meet them? Their Republican opponents will say to them : "You have all been fighting for ten years upon the principle of non-in- tervention, and at your State convention last March, you passed resolutions, without division, unanimously declaring that Congress had no power to legislate on the subject of slavery in the Territories ; and that it would not be expedient for them to exercise it, if they had it ; you went to the national convention, and the slave power have imposed on you an intervention plank — a plank by which you will have to legislate slavery into and maintain it in the Territories." They will call it, of course, a slave code. Will our friends be able to maintain themselves advantageous- ly tyider these circumstances ? I put it to the common sense of everybody if that can be expected. 