Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

straggling hawthorn, where the huge twisted branches, hoary with age, have assumed almost the character of those of a forest tree." This is interrupted by an apostrophe to the "teens," from which we extract the following:

"The teens! Oh what a gush of promise is there in that first burst of fervent life into flower! But the wind of the desert has passed over the blossoms, and where are they? "What is the summer to this spring? "Alas! alas!

"Most deeply, deeply pathetic sight!

What a love of an animal! How delightful! But not half so poetic as Amanda Fitzalan in the Children of the Abbey.

[graphic]
[graphic][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

REMARKS ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA DOCTRINE IN REGARD TO TERRITORY.

Ir will be our endeavor in the following pages, to consider the question that is now injuriously dividing the national opinion, in a mood more philosophical, and if possible more conclusive, than that of sectional or partisan feeling; and, at the same time, to discuss some dangerous doctrines, that have passed unnoticed, or at least unconfuted, during its recent agitation in the Senate and in the House.

"In the Senate of the United States, July 18th, Mr. Clayton of Delaware, chairman of the select committee on the territories of Oregon, California, and New Mexico, reported a bill for the organization of territorial government in each of them."

It is proposed in this bill, to allow the will of the citizens of Oregon, expressed in the temporary system of laws which they have adopted, to prevail against the introduction of slaves in their territory, and in regard to other regions, to refer the whole matter to the Supreme Court, to be decided in private controversy.

If the Court decides, in the first controversy that may arise and be referred to it, that slaves cannot be held in the territories, the Wilmot Proviso principle takes effect, and slavery is forbidden in the territories of the United States.

If it decides that they can be held, then the Calhoun principle takes effect, and slavery is fixed upon all territories not protected by the ordinance of 1787, the Missouri Compromise, or the concession to the citizens of Oregon.

Thus it appears that the Supreme Court will have to bear up against the whole South or the whole North. It must decide in toto for the whole territory in question.

The clauses in the Constitution upon which the Court will be obliged to ground its opinion, in regard to the existing law, and touching the power of Congress to make laws, should that be agitated, are the following:

"1. No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into an

*National Intelligencer, July 19th, 1818. The other, shall, in consequence of any law or regu

committee consisted of four from the North and four from the South.

lation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of

the party to whom such service or labor is due."

The question may arise, whether the law applies to slaves held in the territories

of the United States.

"2. Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory, or other property, belonging to the United States, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

The question may arise, whether a law of Congress forbidding slaves to be held in the territories in question, does not prejudice the claims of some particular States. And if any State shall object to such law, on the strength of this clause, in defence of some one of its citizens, then,-whether the claim of a citizen to hold slaves is the claim also of his State; in a word, whether any State can appear in the business, either as plaintiff or defendant.

Whether the words "rules and regulations" confer the power of making laws against the introduction of any species of property, or declaring any kind of property contraband in territories of the United States.

By the 14th clause, section viii., of the Constitution, Congress has power "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."

[ocr errors]

It appears that a rule" may be made for "government;" and if of army and navy, does it apply also to territory?

"3. Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings."

The question may arise whether the phrase, "in all cases whatsoever," confers the power of legislating on the subject of slavery, in such district, or ceded space, and whether, by construction a fortiori, the power extends to territory.

4. "The migration, or importation, of such persons as any of the States shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

As this clause confers the extraordinary power of prohibiting the introduction of slaves, after the year 1808, into States existing at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the question arises, whether it does not confer the same power in regard to the new States, and, a fortiori, in regard to territory.

Respect for the august tribunal of the nation forbids our attempting, in the present posture of affairs, to elicit the true intent of the Constitution. We mean to enter only upon the general question of policy, and of the idea of the Constitution, in order to an examination of certain doctrines put forth by Mr. Calhoun in his speech upon the Oregon bill.

If we admit the opinion of Mr. Calhoun, that there is a joint ownership of the territories in the States, each State maintaining its right over them, the most natural course would seem to be a division of the territories, according to the common rules and methods for the division of property held by several owners. A property line dividing the portion claimed by the North from that claimed by the South, seems in that case to be the obvious, and only just, remedy for discontent; a remedy which the parties might demand; but we hold the notion of a joint ownership to be grounded upon a false view of the nature of the property.

The Committee did not, however, adopt this view, at least in express terms. They only urge, that slavery has its natural boundaries, and would not probably penetrate north of the latitude of 36° 40'. Mr. Calhoun urged the same argument against the proposition of those

* * *

*

*

*

who wished to fix a geographical line, beyond which slavery should not be lawful. As slavery continues to exist at this day in Kentucky, and formerly existed in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and will easily extend and maintain itself on rich prairie and bottom lands, in temperate climates, even when slaveholders themselves are averse to its extension, the arguments of the committee pass but as

« AnteriorContinuar »