F sso UC-NRLF *B b3D bM2 mm. V^vSs'a iikWxrmfflS®^ tSmffa .■<♦•.■•■•■■'.;..•••. ■-'■!■: •>jh.. 1 ■ ■ . ! -'■ kfte-ar H flj^ $' H ■. 1 ■ . . ■■ tt3A- ffv£.«n£v . I r '■ ■<■• ■!>■■. *■ •=■ >' •■•: afcijfm REESE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. Class i5j / -^_ji r ,lJ rn i! rl u J - 1 ^- l u r ^Tii / .ji rn j! r ^^^u r ^ u u u u — u u u u u u u u^u.i jl, ^ J SPEECH OF JAMES M. MASON, OF VIRGINIA, ON THE BILL TO ORGANISE A TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE TERRITORY OF OREGON. 2.1 "? . r Delivered in the Senate of the United States, July 6, 1848. WASHINGTON: FEINTED BY 'JOHN T. TOWERS, 1848. ■SB** £^ 5 SPEECH tik The bill establishing a Territorial Government over Oregon being under consideration, Mr. MASON addressed the Senate as follows : Mr. President : It seems that the people in Oregon, finding themselves without other law, when the title to the territory was ascertained and established in the United States, assembled in convention and enacted laws for their tem- porary security. Amongst these laws, we have been duly informed, is one by which slavery, or, as it is termed, " involuntary servitude, except for crime," is forever prohibited. Sir, whatever crude opinions may have been formed, when the subject now to be discussed was first under consideration in this body, or elsewhere^I ap- prehend there are none now who will say that the people of a territory belong- ing to the United States have a right projirio jure, to pass laws in derogation of the authority of the United States. If there were such opinions, they have been exploded, and I assume that there is no Senator, and no jurist, who will maintain that the people who may be found within a territory belonging to the United States, undertaking for their own safety, or for any other reason, to legislate for that territory without the sanction of the Government, that such laws have any validity whatever against the owners of the country — that is to say, against the Government of the United States. Well, sir, the Committee on Territories in this body, by instruction from the Senate, have reported a bill providing a government for the Territory of Oregon — under the sanction of what? of the Government of the United States, whose property it is. And by the 12th section of the bill, the laws now existing within the limits of Oregon, be they what they may, are adopted, and declared to be in full force for the gov- ernment of the people of the Territory. One of those laws then being, that involuntary servitude, or slavery, shall be forever thereafter excluded from the Territory ; and that law being adopted by the bill upon your table, if that bill be enacted into law, it follows of necessity that involuntary servitude will be ex- cluded from that Territory by the act cf the Congress of the United States ; and thus we are called upon to treat this bill, so far as regards the 12th section of it, precisely as if there was spread out on its face a prohibition, in terms, against slavery in that Territory. Sir, it is right it should be clearly understood, that it should be uncovered, that we should expose it, so that we may defeat it if we can. Gentlemen have said upon this floor, that the Southern States, (where alone this institution is found,) are here agitating this question — that the Southern States have presented the question before the national councils — and that for all the consequences that result from its agitation, the South is responsible. Let, then, the truth be known ; let the fact appear that a committee of this body have introduced a bill with this provision in it, and if there be offence in agitating the question, let the responsibility rest where it of right belongs. What we seek to do is simply to defeat it. We ask no legislation on the subject whatever, but having stricken this clause from the bill, to leave it, as to that, tabula rasa. Mr. President, in common with others who stand upon this floor, representa- tives of sovereign States of the South, parties to this confederation, I depend not upon the compromises of the Constitution, (as they are called,) but upon its guarantees. And I here announce, as I will undertake to show, that if this pro- vision prevails, and it is the deliberate sense of this Senate, that slavery by act of Congress, is hereafter to be interdicted in the Territory of Oregon, it is done not only in derogation of the faith of the Constitution, but it is done in violation 203474 of its letter. Sir, the guarantees of the Constitution, I am free to admit, are founded in compromise, and although there may be no form of expression in the instrument, which would lead us to infer that compromises existed ; yet they will be found in the character of the enactments, and in the contemporaneous history of the proceedings which led to those enactments. Sir, need I say to gentlemen around me here, legislators of the land, that in any government which is not founded in absolute force — in any government whose just power is derived from the consent of the governed, more especially if it consist of a confedera- tion of States, each sovereign within its sphere, that such government can never be formed, without mutual and great concessions, made with mutual forbearance for the common good of all \< and under how much greater necessity of "conces- sion and compromise must such government be, when made up of States, extend- ing for thousands of miles through every variety of climate, and with all the jarring and conflicting interests, that are incident to variety of occupation and of product. These compromises of the Constitution, or more properly the guar- antees that resulted from them, are what the South now appeals to for the pres- ervation of their federal rights — rights secured to them by compact, and for which ample consideration was paid on their part. Having premised thus much, I now approach this subject with the gravity that becomes the occasion. It has been weli said that Republics have their founda- tion in public virtue, and when this is absent they soon degenerate and fall into decay. Equally true it is, that confederations must have their foundations laid in political integrity and public faith. Constitutional obligation is of little force, when all respect is lost for constitutional faith. Mr. President, there has been but one former occasion when this formidable question was before the country in its present aspect, and Senators now present who were then in the national councils, will bear me witness, that in its agita- tion then, the solid foundations of the Union were shaken. Upon the refusal to admit the State of Missouri into the Union without a clause in her Constitution against the continuance of slavery within her limits, the whole South stood in hostile array against the North and East. The feeling it excited in the Southern States was deep and intense. There was no dissension or difference in that quarter. The attempt to degrade the people of Missouri below the level of equality with the other States, insulting as it was, was yet a small offence, compar- ed with the magnitude of the principle it involved — a principle which assumed a right in the majority, under the sanction of the Constitution, to forbid the ex- tension of the slave population beyond the limits to which it was then confined. Sir, after a lapse of more than a quarter of a century, the same question is again presented, and we are now to discuss, calmly and temperately I hope, whether a numerical majority has the power, under constitutional sanction, to interfere with the institutions of the Southern States, by forbidding their exten- sion into territory, the common property of the Union, and thus to disparage and impair the political weight which has been assigned by the Constitution to this portion of the confederacy. Mr. President, when the Constitution was adopted in 1768, the institution of slavery formed an important part of the social condition of all the Southern and of many of the Northern States. Its existence and influence upon the future destiny of the South, where, from climate and other causes, it was most likely to become permanent, was recognized and discussed with mature deliberation. The antagonist interest of the North and East, were brought out in full array ; and after months of consideration and debate by the wise and patriotic men then assembled ; after great and mutual concessions on all sides for the common good, a representative weight, in the federal councils was assigned to the slave population, and secured to the States interested by perpetual guarantee of the Constitution. Sir, there are four provisions in this instrument, recognising slavery and pro- viding appropriate guarantees for security of that institution. First — In the 2d section of the 1st article, establishing a basis of representa- tion on three-fifths of that population. Second — In the 9th section of the same article, prohibiting the passage of any law by Congress prior to the year 1808, [a period of twenty years] to prevent the further importation of slaves by any of the States. Third — In the 5th article, providing that no amendment to the Constitution shall affect the prohibitions of the 9th section of the 1st article, prior to the year 1808. And, Fourth — In the 2d clause, 2d section of the 4th article, providing for the sur- render of fugitive slaves, on the claim of their owners, by the State where such fugitive may be found. These, sir, are all full and distinct recognitions of a class held in bondage, and are guarantees provided by the constitutional compact — first, allowing their con- tinued importation for twenty years ; second, providing for the security of their tenure as property; and, third, and most important, admitting them in the scale of representation as an element of political power; and for each one of these guarantees, a full and ample equivalent was given to the Northern and Eastern States, in immunities and advantages secured to them. I will instance a very striking one, which has been rescued from oblivion by Mr. Jefferson and left under his hand as a memorial for history. It is taken from his unpublished manuscripts, and was communicated to me many years since by the Hon. Wm. C. Rives, of Virginia, my predecessor on this floor. Mr. Jefferson was Minister in France whist the Convention sat, which form- ed the Consti ution ; and Mr. Mason, at whose relation he recorded this scrap of history, was a member of that Convention, and it is dated at the family seat of the relator some four years only after the event : " Gunston Hall, September 30, 1792. " Ex relatione G. Mason. The Constitution as agreed to till a fortnight before the Conven" tion rose, was such an one as he would have set his hand and heart to. 1. The President was to be elected for seven years, then ineligible for seven years more. 2. Rotation in the Sen- ate. 3. A vote of two-thirds in the legislation on particular subjects, and expressly on that of navigation. The three New England States were constantly with us in all questions, (Rhode Island not there, and New York seldom.) So that it was these three States, with the five South- ern ones, against Pennsylvania, Jersey, and Delaware. With respect to the importation of slaves, it was left to Congress. This disturbed the two southernmost States, who knew that Congress would immediately suppress the importation of slaves. These two States, therefore, struck up a bargain with the three New England States, if they would join to admit slaves for some years, the two southernmost States would join in changing the clause which required two- thirds of the legislature in any vote. It was done. These articles were changed accordingly, and from that moment the two southern States, and the three northern ones joined Pennsylvania, Jersey, and Delaware, and made the majority 8 to 3 against us, instead of 8 to 3 for us, as it had been through the whole Convention. Under this coalition the great principles of the Constitution were changed in the last days of the Convention." Now, sir, by reference to the journal of that Convention it will be found that the votes of the States implicated were changed as are recorded in that memo- rial. And what is proved by it ? Why, first, that the right to import slaves for twenty years was bartered away by three of the New England States; and, second, that in consideration of this immunity, the whole right of legislation on all matters affecting commerce and navigation, which up to that time had been restricted to a majority of two-thirds, was committed to a bare numerical majori- ty ; and a very bad bargain it was for the South. But, ex hac,disce omnes. Let this one example illustrate the whole. Sir, the South has been faithful and true to all their constitutional engagements. If there be an instance where, however onerous, the South has failed both in spirit and letter to fulfil those engagements on her part, I pray gentlemen to make it known. Let us see ill reference to these guarantees respecting the institution of slave- ry, how they have been fulfilled by the Slates now called "Free States." I in- stance the obligation on the States for the surrender of fugitive slaves. How has that been fulfilled ? The clause imposing it is part of the same section, and in pari-maferia, with that requiring the surrender of those who shall " flee from justice." Sound and good faith to the compact, requires that each class of fugi- tives should be " delivered up," as an act of State authority, upon the demand of the " Executive" in the one case, and on the "claim of the party" entitled, in the other. I ask of Senators representing the so-styled " free States," how are these obligations discharged? Is it not due to the faith of the Constitution, that each should be regarded as equally obligatory? And yet, what is the fact? Why, laws are enacted in all the States, requiring of the Executive authority to sur- render fugitives from justice upon demand of the State whence they flee, and providing for their arrest and detention until such demand is made. But in the case of fugitive slaves, in none of these States is the like constitutional duty re- garded. In some, laws are even enacted denying the use ot their jails for the custody of such fugitives, and denouncing penaltiee on their officers if they lend any aid in arresting them. Whilst in all, the citizens of the South who go there in pursuit, are insulted and defied, and even hunted down and killed. I have no disposition to speak in terms of crimination, or to excite angry or bitter feel- ing. But our property is insecure. The guarantees under which we hold it are habitually and wantonly disregarded, and I should be wanting in duty to those whose honor and interests are in part committed to my care, did I not avail my- self of the occasion to make it known. Sir, all that the Southern States ask is that the Constitution shall be observed in good faith. They have a right to de- mand, and they do demand, that the guarantees of the Constitution shall be ob- served and held sacred. I have heard Senators on this floor, the Senator from New York, (Mr. Dix, ) and the Senator from Vermont, (Mr. Phelps,) at this session, and within a week, declare that it is the purpose of the Northern and Eastern States, to do what ? To prevent the extension of what they call the " slave power." I put it to those Senators, what do they mean by the " slave power ?" Mr. Dix. — I did not make such a declaration. Mr. Mason. — I so understood the Senator in his remarks, although I do not find the expression in his printed speech. It was used then by the Senator from Vermont. What is the "slave power?" In the discussion of a question like this, we have a right to expect that Senators should give us terms that are in- telligible. What, then, is the slave power to which the Senator says an end must be put? Why, sir, it is the representative weight, which is assigned by the Constitution to this species of population, or property. If there be any power lodged by the Constitution, in which it is supposed the Northern States do not share in common with their brethren in other States, it is referrible to the clause of the Constitution which arranges and distributes the representation. And it is this power, for which ah ample equivalent has been given, w T bich we are told now by Senators is not further to be extended. Mr. President, this representative weight, assigned to the States of this Union by the Constitution, must be preserved. If it is not preserved, I need not tell gentlemen what the consequences will be. It is not only necessary for the security of their proper- ty, but it is indispensable to their political welfare. The question of abolition heretofore has been a mere brulum fulmen, but it comes now in a shape that is no longer to be despised. The institution was first assailed when a majority in the Federal Congress attempted in 1820 to prevent the State of Missouri from coming into this Union, unless upon terms derogatory to her as a sovereign State, and directly in violation of the Constitution. Sir, I 'know not how it was felt at •the North — I know not how far Northern statesmen cr Northern politicians may have believed, that their ascendancy was involved in the curtailment of the slave representation; but I know this, that in the South it required but the application ofthe torch, to kindle the whole country. They looked upon it as not only vital to their safety, but they looked upon the attempt to assail it, as an insult, an in- dignity offered to them as sovereign member* of this confederacy. Sir, Mr. Jefferson lived in those days. No man, I suppose, will question his loyalty to 'the Constitution, and none his sagacity as. a statesman. A letter was read on this floor the other day by the honorable Senalor from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) in which Mr. Jetferson spoke liis alarm at the portentous consequen- ces threatened by this movement against the South. His mind was tilled with the portents of the occasion, and his views freely expressed in letters to his friends, show that in this parricidal attack, he saw the days of the Constitution- numbered. Mr. Jefferson's opinions on the occasion cited are entitled to great weight. A matured statesman and philosopher, profoundly versed as weli in the science of government, as in the shoals and depths of patty, he saw through the vista of years, this disturbing influence — ever on the alert when once aroused, until its wicked work was ended, in the overthrow of the Constitution of his country. In a letter, dated on the 13th April, 1820, to Mr. *****, a gentleman now living, he says : ** The old schism of Federal and Republican threatened nothing, because it existed in every State, and united them together by the fraternism of party ; but the coincidence of s'dered as a com- mon property, subject to be parcelled out by Congress, into five convenient and independent Gov- ernments, in such manner and at such times as the wisdom of that assemby shall hereafter direct. " We have coolly and dispassionately considered the subject, we have weighed probable incon- veniences and hardship against the sacrifice of just and essential rights, and do instruct you not to agree to the confederation unless an article or articles be added thereto in conformity with our declaration." New Jersey did ratify, but under protest, "in the firm reliance that the can- dor and justice of the several States will, in due time, remove, as far as possi- ble, the inequality which now subsists." The State of Delaware also came into that confederacy, but under like protest, from which 1 shall also ask leave to read an extract, as it exhibits the feeling which then actuated the States ; all which* they were willing to lay down for the common good : Extract from the resolutions of the State of Delaware, presented by her delegates in Congress, February 23d, 1771). " Resolved, That this State consider themselves justly entitled to a right, in common with the members of the Union, to that extensive tract of country which lies westward of the frontier of the United States, the property of which was not vested in or granted to individuals at the com- mencement of the present war: that the same hath been or may be gained from the King of Great Britain or the native Indians by the blood and treasure of al!, and ought therefore to be a common estate, to be granted out on terms beneficial to the United States." 10 Sir, it is useful to go back, and contrast the spirit with which these States came originally together, in the days of the Revolution, with that which ani- mates some of them now. Such was the state of things when the territory was ceded, which is now brought up in judgment against Virginia, and other Southern States. And what was done ? Why the State of New York set the example, and made the sacrifice required on the altar of the country, for the common good. Let me exhibit an extract from an act passed by New York : " Whereas nothing under Divine Providence can more effectually contribute to the traquility and safety of the United States of America, than a federal alliance on such principles as will give satisfaction to its respective members : and whereas the articles of confederation and per- petual union recommended by the honorable the Congress of the United States of America, have not proven acceptable to all the States, it having been conceived thai a portion of the waste and uncultivated territory within the limits or claims of certain States, ought to be appropriated as a common fund for the expenses of the war: and the people of the State of New York being on all occasions disposed to manifest their regard for their sister States, and their earnest desire to promote the general interest and security, and more especially to accelerate the federal al- liance, by removing, as far as depends upon them, the before-mentioned impediment to its final accomplishment ; Be it therefore enacted/' And then followed a resolution of the old Congress accepting this territorial grant from the State of New York, and inviting the other States to do the like. Sir, the next State in order was Virginia. There had been a strong remon- strance presented by Virginia to this claim of New York to the lands which she considered embraced within her territory of the north-west, the whole of which was forgotten and laid aside, and that great State, in the year 1783, gave authority to her representatives in Congress, to convey to the United States, in absolute perpetuity, a territory that is covered by ten parallels of latitude, and thirteen degrees of longitude, out of which have been carved five of the States which are now in the Union, and enjoying its protection. And she did it for what ? Why, to meet in a spirit of conciliation the concessions of other States, to do every thing for the common good, and to accomplish which, she has truly, given up her birthright. Contrast the language held by New York in the act of 1780, with the language held by her Senator on this floor now. Sir, who believes, when it required a spirit of such mutual forbearance and concession, a spirit that was disposed to give up every thing for the common good, in order to prevail upon the States to bind themselves in articles of confederation, that you can keep those States under any federative government whatever, when that spirit is forgotten and disregarded ? Who is there on this floor who believes, that Virginia, the largest, most populous, and most wealthy, of the Southern States, ever would have been a party to the Constitution, if there had been a prevision engrafted in it, forbidding an extension of any part of her population to any territory, that might hereafter become the property of the United States ? No one. And if she would not then, and believes now, that such extension is her constitutional right, who believes that she, or any of her Southern sister States, can remain in the confederacy, when the barriers that had been erected for their protection, have been ruthlessly broken down, and disregarded ? Every movement that is made affecting the rights and power of the Southern States in reference to this population, is looked upon there, as in derogation of their exclusive authority. They are sensitive on this subject. It forms a part of their most valuable property. It is a great element of their political power, and its proper management is essential to their safety. Yet honorable Senators here, as I understand them, looking upon the powers of this Government at un- limited, perfectly without control, approach this subject as they would approach an ordinary subject of legislation, and assert a right to control it, whether with or without the assent of the States, where alone the institution is found. Is not all power, that is not granted to the General Government reserved to the States? And do you rind anything in the Constitution which authorizes any interference on the part of the General Government with the domestic institutions, and the regulation of the internal affairs of the States ? Sir, in this connexion I was 11 very much struck with one view presented by the Senator from Vermont. The Senator from South Carolina attempted to show, and I think successfully, that let this power of legislation over the Territories be derived whence it might, it was a trust, to be administered by this Government for the benefit otthe States, by whom the trust was created. I understood the Senator from Vermont to say it was not a trust, and that it was not, because there was devolved upon Con- gress "legislative discretion." Mr. Phelps. — The Senator misapprehends me. My remark was that there was no analogy to be drawn between a legislative trust, and a legal trust ; and that the important difference between the two was, the ingredient of legislative discretion. Mr. Mason. — A trust is a trust, whether it be created under the sanction of law, or result from a delegated authority to legislate. And although in its latter form, there may be what the Senator calls "legislative discretion," yet such discretion does not extinguish the trust. The Senator will not contend that it does ; neither will a legislative discretion enlarge the powers of the trus- tee. They remain limited by the object of the trust, though the choice of means to execute, it may be extended. Be it a public or a private trust, its obligations on the trustee are the same, that he shall not transcend his delegated authority. And if you want to determine whether the trust has been well or ill performed, you must look at the charter creating it, Mr. President, I will not say there is a party, but there are statesmen in this country who look upon this Government as a property to be enjoyed and parcel- led out, rather than as a trust to be administered for the common good ; and here is one great instance in which the principle is to be affirmed or denied. A territory is common property, the property of all ; and I submit to any Sena- tor who hears me, as I will also to the judgment of posterity — whether the trust is properly fulfilled, when you exclude from such common property, a large por- tion of the joint owners. The Senator from Vermont, however, has said, that when you forbid slavery within territory belonging to the United States, you do not destroy the equality between the citizens of the States, because all citizens are free to go there. Sir, if this is not keeping the word of promise to the ear and breaking it to the hope, I know not where an instance may be found. What would you have ? Suppose a portion of that tenitory be valuable to the South, you extend fjll permission to the planters of the South to go there, provided, they will abandon the only property, that would make it valuable to them after they get there. That is the equality, which the Senator from Vermont would mete out to us. No, sir. I insist that the guarantees of the Constitution to which I have referred, as recognizing this portion of our population, and assign- ing its stipulated representative weight, were never designed to exclude the States interested, from participating equally with the rest, in all future acquisi- tions of territory. I put it to honorable Senators who hear me, what would be the condition of the South, if this pretension were submitted to ? There are now three millions of slaves, I presume, in the Southern States, and such is their condition of ease and comfort, and abundance, that they increase faster thr.n the white population ; and you propose to circumscribe them, and to declare that on no occasion shall they ever be extended into the territories of the Un ; ted States. What then will be the condition of the South; with their lands worn out, and walls of circum- vallation thrown around them, they will have no choice, but to abandon their property and their homes. And the Senator from Vermont says this is all right, there is no objection to " penning them up," and if ever they emerge beyond those prescribed limits, they must come out as freemen ; I ask Senators where are they to go? What territory is there within the free States that will receive a class of free blacks? Not one. And yet the honorable Senator, with a calmness that becomes a philosopher, or a gentleman who is not implicated at all in this institution, tells us, it is all very well, there is no objection to "penning them 12 up." We had an instance in Virginia not long ago of the fate that awaits emancipated negroes in the free States. A gentleman, whose sagacity and in- tellect, illustrated and adorned the counsels of his country while he lived, and whose memory will be honored and venerated, when others shall be forgotten, manumitted his slaves, by his last will, to the number of some five hundred, and made ample provision for their location, beyond the limits of the slave Slates. His executor — a man who knew what a trust was — went to the State of Ohio, and by invitation there, purchased a tract of country as a residence for the manu- mitted slaves, and when he took them there, they were driven off by force, by the people of the country where he had purchased. Sir, this matter of abolition is destitute of every savor of humanity, if the slave population are to be manu- mitted, under the promise of a refuge in the free States of the Union. The Sen- ator from New Yotfk has told us v^ry truly, that the black population in a state of freedom, dwindles and diminishes, and would soon become extinct. It is in- cident to their race. They do not multiply, in a state of freedom, on our conti- nent. No, sir, contemplate the spectacle we nave in these Northern Slates now, see the rivalry, jealousy, and hatred that is engendered there between the white population and the free blacks ; and see that race, the subject of so much commiseration here, because they are in slavery, dying and rotting in naked- ness and filth, in the cellars and dens of your Northern cities. Sir, there was another idea thrown out by the Senator from Vermont. I understood him to assert distinctly, and thence draw an important legal deduction, that a slave was not property, but that the tenure was, what? A mere "incident to a domestic relation. " Well, sir, that was certainly a felicitous turn of expression. But the objection to it is, that it is utterly void of meaning — the civilians tell us, that slavery had i^s origin in the rights of conquest — the captor had the right to put his prisoner to death, and when he spared his life, it was done on the im- plied contract, that the captive should become his bondsman. This is yet the law of the savage race in Africa ; and the first negro slave that was landed on our shores, brought this condition with him from the land ( f his birth. Slavery, then, is an incident to a hostile relation, which is the very opposite to a domestic relation. But, be this as it may, the condition of slavery is fixed in the country, whence the subject comes. It required no special law to create it here, as it seems to have been supposed by an honorable Senator from Connecticut, (Mr. Niles.) The first slaves imported into Virginia, were landed from a Dutch ship, in 1620, and were purchased by the planters. The common law was then the law of the colony. By that law, their condition as property was recognized, and under its pervading principle, that the issue follows the condition of the mother, (par- tus sequitur ventrem,) their descendants, as well as the descendants of every subsequent importation, have remained in bondage. There never was a statute in Virginia creating slavery, nor was there any need of one to establish that insti- tution. The only statute of that character, was one passed at an early day, for- bidding the planters from making slaves of the Indian children, who were sent in as hostages. Laws have been passed from time to time regulating the condition of slavery, as a recognized condition of part of the population ; but for no other end. And by the policy of such legislation, slaves have been at one time treated as real estate, and at another as personal. The condition of slavery, then, is nothing more than the right of the owner to the service of the bondsman during life of the latter, and to which the jus dis- pownrii is attached, as to any other species cf property — the same right which the master at common law has to the service of the servant, or the master to the apprentice ; the only difference being, so far as the quality of property is concerned, that the one is temporary and the other during life. Whence then does the honorable Senator from Vermont derive his opinion, that a slave is not property. 13 Cut the deduction drawn by that honorable Senator is equally untenable. Proceeding upon the assumption, that slavery is a mere ''incident to a domestic relation," he argues, that it can exist only where such "domestic relation" is re- cognized by law ; and that in consequence, when a slave is taken to a State where there is no such relation, he becomes free. Sir, I think I have established as a legal proposition the very opposite. When the condition of the subject is that of bondage, whether it be temporary or per- petual, it is recognized by law, and enforced as a legal right. And if it be the case of a slave, such slave becomes free, when taken to a country, or State, only, where such servitude is forbidden, or prohibited by express local law. It follows, then, that while no special law is required to create this species of bondage, it does require positive or special law, to destroy it ; and such laws have been pass- ed in all the States where slavery has been prohibited. Mr. Walker. — Will the honorable Senotor allow me to ask him a question? Mr. Mason, — Certainly. Mr. Walker. — Does the Senator mean to say, that slavery is the natural con- dition ol man, and that manumission, is a mere step in the. progress of an artifi- cial condition. Mr. Mason. — I am unaware that the Senator from Wisconsin can draw that deduction from any thing said by me. Mr. Walker. — My deduction may not be the same that the Senator himself would draw. I merely ask, in order to get an explanation of the honorable Senator's views. Mr. Mason. — The proposition I assert is this : that the African population brought to the shores of North America in bondage, and sold to the inhabitants as bondsmen, brought slavery as their condition from the shores of Africa, and the law recognized it here. That is all. What the natural condition of these people in Africa may have been, the Senator may determine lor himself; but where the condition of bondage is once fixed, that condition is recognized by law, unless there be a statute to the contrary. It is said, that in Africa this relict of barbarism, which places the captive at the absolute disposal of the captor, remains, and the larger portion of slaves sent over to this country before the pro- hibition of the trade were those taken in battle or seize il by the strong arm of power. The proposition I assert is, that let their condition result from what it might, they brought it with them from Africa. It was given to them, fixed upon them there ; and all that was done in this country was to recognize it. There never was a law in Virginia creating slavery ; and I doubt if there has been such a law in any ol the Southern States. There is no necessity for such a law. Suffer me now, sir, to sum up the argument I have advanced. This institu- tion existed when the Constitution was formed. It was recognized, it was legis- lated upon, it was made the subject of concession on one side, and equivalent on the other. There was assigned to it, a representative weight, as an element of political power in the Southern States. It was guaranteed to those States by the Constitution, and it can never be tolerated, that a power in Congress to legislate for the territories — a power deduced from necssity only, and temporary in its exercise, (for it ceases when the territory becomes a State,) should be wrested from its legitimate ends, and made to unsettle the balances of the Constitution, and to destroy its guarantees. To give it such direction, would be in outrage of all just legal construction, and of every sense of political right in the States in- terested. The Senator from New York has said, that there is a line of unbroken prece- dents, from the first enactments for territories under the Constitution, down to this day, establishing the right in Congress, which is now contended for by him. Sir, I have examined with care, the laws which he has advanced as precedents, and I utterly deny that they touch the right in question — save in the single in- stance, of the act of 1820, for the admission into the Union of the State of Mis- souri, known as an exception, by the name of the "Missouri compromise." 14 The first law cited by the Senator as a precedent, is the act of August 7th, 1789, entitled " an act to provide for the government of the territory northwest of the Ohio river." This act does nothing more, than make provision for adapting the obligations, &c. of the ordinance of '87 " to the present Constitution of the United States," in order that it may " continue to have full effect." It was necessary to do this, in order to continue in force within that territory, the compact contained in that ordinance, as made by the Continental Congress — and the act was passed in obedience to the sixth article of the Constitution, which is in these words : "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, asunder the Confederation." The ordinance of '87 was one of these "engagements" — and the act of 1789, did nothing more than to continue it in force, under the new Government of the United States. I have already spoken at large in respect to this ordinance of '87 — it was made, and ordained, as the law governing the Northwest Territory, before the present Constitution was formed — its sanction was derived frcm the Congress of the "Confederation" — ond that sanction was recognized by the sixth article of the Constitution, and thus became a mandate to the new Government. When Congress then, in 1789, and subsequently, legislated for the government of the territories, or any of them, to the northwest of the Ohio river ; it legislated in subordination to the ordinance of '87 — and it follows as that ordinance prohibit- ed slavery, such prohibition was paramount to the authority of Congress. The States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, were carved out of this Northwest Territory, and no precedent of constitutional power affecting the the question of slavery, can be drawn from any act of Congress, for the organ- ization or government of the territories, out of which either of these States was form Dd. The act of March, 1804, erecting the territorial government of Lousiana and Orleans is next cited by the Senator from New York. It is true, sir, that this act regulated the admission of slaves into tho?e Territories, but it expressly au- thorized, what the South now contends for, viz : the importation of slaves by a " citizen of tLe United States, removing into said territory for actual settlement,, and being at the time of such removal bona fide owner of such slaves." The prohibitions were only to the importation of slaves from beyond the limits of the United States, in other words, a prohibition of the foreign slave trade; and of slaves which had been imported into the United States since the 1st of May, 1798. The cause of this last restriction I have not been able to trace, but I have been told, that it was referrible to some treaty stipulations between France and Spain, from which latter, the province had been derived. The laws for the government of the Territory of Mississippi, which was ce- ded by South Carolina ; of Alabama, which was ceded in part by South Caro- lina, and in part by Georgia ; and of Arkansas, which was part of Louisiana, contain no prohibition against citizens of any of the States, removing into those Territories for settlement, with their slaves. In the instance of Iowa, which was erected into a separate Territory by act of June, 1838, the law scrupulously refrained from this prohibition of slavery, al- though it was formed of territory subject to the restriction of the Missouri com- promise act, being a part of the Missouri Territory, lying north of the parallel of 36° 30'. Jjv the act of April 20, 1836, establishing a territorial government for Wisconsin, (which was part of the Northwest Territory, and thus subject ta the ordinance of '87,) ihe inhabitants were declared " — entitled to all the rights, privileges, and advantages granted and secured by the ordinance of '87, and subject to all the conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions in said articles imposed.'' Whereas, by the act for the government of Iowa, the " rights, privileges, and immunities granted and secured to the inhabitants of Wisconsin," are extended 16 to the people of Iowa, but without the "conditions, restrictions, and prohibi- tions," of the same ordinance. Thus, sir, after reviewing all the acts cited by the honorable Senator from New York, and to which he refers as " a current of authority uninterrupted and almost unopposed through more than half a century, down to the present day," we find not one, extending the prohibition now contended for, save that for the admission of Missouri, in 1820, and which stands as a marked exception. Sir, I will not go over the history of this act of 1820. It presents the only instance since the foundation of this Government in 1788, when, by law, slaves, accompanied by their owners, Were excluded from any territory belonging to the United States. And although it was passed in violation of the third article of the treaty with France, of 1803, by which the terrilory was ceded to the Uni- ted States — which treaty was the " supreme law of the land f* and further^ as I conceive, in derogation of the constitutional rights of the citizens of the South- ern States, yet, as it was agreed to as a compromise by the South, for the sake of the Union, I would be the last to disturb it. Power, Mr. President, is never appeased by concession ; and we are now reaping the bitter fruits of the concessions then made by the South. How strikingly is illustrated, by this renewed struggle, the predictions of Mr. Jefferson, in his letter of April, 1^20, in which, speaking of the Missouri question, he says : " The coincidence of a marked principle, moral and political, with a geographical line once conceived, I feared would never more be obliterated from the mind ; that it would be recurring on every occasion, and renewing irritations, until it would kindle such mutual and mortal Ha- tred, as to render separation preferable to eternal discord." Sir, the prophecy is fulfilled. There is a party organized, or in course of or- ganization at the North, lifting itself erect on the pending canvass for the Presi- dency, on whose banner is inscribed, as the sole rallying cry, "destruction to the slave power." We have seen the preliminary chart of that party in the manifesto of its convention recently held at Utica, in New York, in which all parties are invited at the North, to abandon all subjects of former dissension, and to unite in a common crusade to break down the institutions of the South. Sir, the Senator from New York, (Mr. Dix,) stands the exponent of that party in this Senate-house — a party whose mission is, to divide the North and South on this question of the so-called " slave power." Already we have had three remarkable documents, shadowing forth their plan of campaign. The first, is a letter from Martin Van Buren, addressed in reply to the "dele- gates of the city and county of New York" to the Utica Convention, sketching in advance the principles and policy of the party, in embryo. Next comes the speech of the honorable Senator from New York, following step by step the landmarks there laid down, and denouncing any extension of slavery, into territories where it is not now found, as of " evil tendency, icrong in itself, and repugnant to the humanity and the civilization of the age." And last, the manifesto of the Utica Convention. I trust, sir, that Senators on all sides have read this paper with attention, be- cause it develops, in extenso, the principles and purposes of this new Northern party; avows its objects to be, to get possession of the Government of the Union for the purpose of destroying the political weight of " the slave representation," and assigns their appropriate duties, to its recognized leaders. And, more than all, it denounces the old and healthy issues which hav3 heretofore divided par- ties, as no longer worthy of consideration, and calls upon former friends, and former foes, to unite alike in a great concerted effort, to break down the barriers of the Constitution. To prove this, sir, I may be pardoned for making a single extract from the document, where it will be found under the head of " Duty of the Fiee Stales," and in these words : " If, from these, or any other causes, the people of the free States have suffered in the estima- tion of the South, or of the world, the time has now come when they owe it to themselves, and to the nation, to redeem their character from this reproach. Both the late political parties have 16 the opportunity to do, and they are called upon to do this ; they may unite in the effort withe any abandonment of their distinctive principles. The old issues, which for the last twenty yes have divided them, are now settled or set aside ; a new issue has been presented, in which minor differences — and in which differences that, under circumstances, would be important-] are merged and swallowed up. " It is important, too, that this effort should now be made, and that, if possible, it should made to succeed. Resist the beginning, is the maxim of political, not less than moral sciend This is the firat time since the formation ot the Government that the slave power, whilst retaij ing its distinct political associations with the two great national parties, has been able to seij and to sway the sceptres of each. If the people of the free States understand and perform thd duty, such an exhibition will never again be witnessed." Mr. President, these are vtfords of fearful omen. We are already aware th| ten States of this confederacy have, through their legislative assemblies, calle upon their representatives in Congress to maintain this interdict against the e| tension of Southern institutions to the new territories. And here we have proclamation by a party, said to be of formidable numbers, in the great State New York, separating themselves from all former political alliance, arrayed der leaders of known distinction, burying all former topics of political dissensu and proclaiming as the great bond of future union, exterminating war to " slal power." And for what objects is a party to be thus marshalled 1 For the publ weal — the common good ? Sir, let not words so dear to Republicans be profan] by such unholy perversion. To advance the cause of freedom and free gove] ment ? No, no ! When was freedom born of tyranny — whether it be the ranny of one or of many ? The evil day, long looked for and dreaded by the sages and patriots of the lad dawns darkly through this proclamation — when a line shall be drawn betwej the North and South, and a party resting on geographical division alone sh march up to it, as the line of power. This is the party which the Utica maj festo seeks to rally. Mr. President, I appeal to the States of New England. Will they lend th< selves to minister to the lust of dominion, which alone actuates this nortlu schism. To Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. To Vermel which sprung from the loins of New York, midst the throes of the Revoluti( as the fabled goddess from the head of Jupiter, fully armed for the combat. Sir, if the appeal be vain, and the conquest be achieved by their aid, it ne( no Cassandra gift to foretell what their doom shall be when the battle is fouj and the guarantees of the Constitution are broken down and destroyed. Tl will share the fate of all weaker allies. The bonds of the Federal Union v] lently disruptured, what shall keep these humbler planets in the independei of appropriate orbits? L?t them look at the power, wealth, and position of llij self- proclaimed leader; already rejoicing in the proud distinction of the "Emj State," as it is ostentatiously pourtrayed at Utica, and see in it their own hopeh and deserved annihilation, when the work of disunion is achieved. Yes, sir, N| York will then stand amongst them as the "chief," and they the vassal republi I quote from the Utica address : " New York, with a territory possessing boundless advantages for foreign and internal tn with a temperate and healthful sky, and with extensive districts of fertile soils; with abun< supplies of salt and iron, and peculiar facilities for every kind of manufacturing industry ; wij population greater now than that of England at the era of American colonization, and wl may well be increased within her borders to four times its present number ; with several maH internal trade, numbering respectively from twenty to fifty thousand inhabitants; and, toweij above them all, in queenly pride, the commercial metropolis of this hemisphere ; with a for commerce that brings to the federal Government more than one-third of its revenues by impc with these resources, in possession and in prospect, what shall hinder her, if the nulhfiers of | Constitution and the abolitionists of freedom — the blind leaders of the blind — shall, by acci(| or design, drive on their fo'lowers to the sin and folly of secession, from being and remaining chief of the new Republics into which the American States will then be parcelled out." But, sir, I pursue this ungrateful theme no further. I yet confide in the generative spirit of republican virtue at the North, to consign to deserved ol quy, this first attempt to array the Republics of the Confederacy against c| other, in a sheer struggle for power. Mzs flSB^P & faBsMFh K&3&ii$