SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES.

119 tion consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil, nor in respect to African slavery." "It will be observed," said the committee, "that the bill for establishing these two Territories omits the Wilmot proviso on the one hand, and on the other makes no provision for the introduction of slavery into any part of them. That proviso has been the fruitful source of distraction and agitation. If it were adopted and applied to any Territory, it would cease to have any obligatory force so soon as such Territory were admitted as a State into the Union. . . . The true principle which ought to regulate the action of Congress in forming territorial governments for each newly-acquired domain is to refrain from all legislation on the subject in the Territory acquired, so long as it retains the territorial form of government-leaving it to people of such Territory, when they have attained to a condition which entitles them to admission as a State, to decide for themselves the question of the allowance or prohibition of domestic slavery."

Leading Southern Senators were unwilling, however, to acquiesce in these views and recommendations of Mr. Clay and his associates; but sought a distinct recognition of the right to hold slaves in the new Territories. Mr. Jefferson Davis proposed to so amend the committee's bill as to prevent the territorial Legislature from "passing any law interfering with rights of property growing out of the institution of African slavery as it exists in any of the States of this Union." This was a bold and sufficiently plain proposition; but it became almost immediately apparent that it could not command a majority of the Senators. The powerful voice of Mr. Clay was promptly against it. "I cannot vote," he said, "to convert a Territory already free into a slave Territory."

Mr. Jefferson Davis proposed to modify his proposition, and moved as an amendment, "that nothing contained in the bill should be construed to prevent the territorial Legislature from passing such laws as may be necessary for the protection of rights of property of any kind which may have been or may be hereafter, conformably to the Constitution and laws of the United States, held in or introduced into such Territory."

This amendment covered the doctrine of "non-intervention," as Mr. Davis said, though at the same time he alleged that by the adoption of it the Senate would recognize-by strong implication at least the existence of slavery in the Territories; that at any rate it would recognize the constitutional right of slaveholders to carry their slaves into the Territories and hold them there, and enjoy the fruits of their labor; rather a remarkable kind of non-intervention. And upon this proposition, susceptible of such a construction, Mr. Davis said he sought a distinct expression of sentiment on the part of all the Senators.

Mr. Chase said he felt it exceedingly desirable to have some proposition to vote upon which should have the same meaning in all parts of the country, which was not the case with that of the Senator from Mississippi. Some Senators agreed with the author in his conclusion touching its import, and some denied it. He wished to exclude that conclusion, and offered an amendment which he thought would effect that purpose, and upon which he desired a vote. His amendment provided, "that nothing contained in the act should be construed as authorizing or permitting the introduction of slavery or the holding of persons as property in the said Territory."

Several Senators, in a breath, declared this to be nothing other than the Wilmot proviso.

"It is not the Wilmot proviso," said Mr. Chase. "The bill reported by the committee contained an express prohibition of territorial legislation in respect to African slavery. It so happens that hardly any two Senators who have spoken on the subject of that prohibition have agreed as to its import, and it was for the purpose of fixing a construction that the Senator from Mississippi offered his amendment, which provides that the territorial Legislature shall neither introduce nor exclude slavery, but shall have power to legislate for the protection of property of every kind which may be introduced or held conformably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

"What does this language mean? Shall we advance a single step toward a clear and unambiguous declaration of legislative intention if we adopt this amendment? Undoubtedly the intent would be clear enough if we all agreed that the terms

COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850.

121

property of every kind held within or brought into the Terri tories in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States, included property in slaves. But we are not so agreed," and he had offered an amendment which met and negatived the proposition of Mr. Davis, "that the right to carry slaves into the Territory, and hold and dispose of them there, is covered and secured either by the Senator's amendment or by the original clause as reported by the committee. Those Senators who think that under the original provision of the bill or under the amendment, slaves may be introduced into the Territory or persons held there as property-who see nothing undesirable in that result-will of course vote against my restrictive proposition. But I do not see how any Senator can refuse to vote for it, who holds the opinion-frequently expressed here —that neither the original clause nor the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi, when rightly construed, will warrant slavery in the Territories, or who is unwilling to see slavery established there as the effect and result of legislation here. Such a vote will only give expression and effect to the professed wish and purpose of such a Senator. It will not be a vote for the prohibition of slavery in the Territories. It will be a vote that slavery shall not be established there by the bill or the amendment, under a construction which many Senators insist upon as the true one, and which-there is some reason to feel -may be held to be the true one by the judiciary as now constituted."

The debate which followed upon this proposed amendment of Mr. Chase to the amendment of Mr. Davis-participated in by Clay, Webster, Cass, Davis, Douglas, and others—was important, as fixing the sense in which the committee's clause on slavery, in the territorial bills, was interpreted by Senators. Mr. Douglas expressed the prevailing sentiment. Said that Senator: "He" (alluding to Mr. Jefferson Davis) "desires an amendment which he thinks will recognize the institution of slavery in the new Territories as it is now existing in this country. I do not believe that it exists there now by law. I believe it is prohibited by law there at this time, and the effect if not the object of his amendment would be to introduce slavery by law into a country from which I think a large majority of this Senate are

of opinion it is now excluded, and he calls upon us to introduce it there. The Senator from Kentucky, who brought forward this compromise, tells us that 'he never can give a vote by which he will introduce slavery where it does not exist.' Other Senators have declared the same thing, to an extent which authorizes us to assume that a majority of this Senate will never extend slavery by law into territory now free."

The question on the adoption of the amendment of Mr. Chase showed twenty-five Senators in its favor and thirty against it-among the latter Mr. Douglas and Mr. Webster. The amendment of Mr. Davis met a like fate-twenty-five Senators voting aye and thirty voting no.

Touching the Texas boundary question, Mr. Chase declared that he had no disposition to take from Texas a foot nor an inch which rightfully belonged to her; "but I have regarded from the beginning," he said, "this question of boundary as one to be adjusted-since the United States now stands in the place of Mexico-by some fair and competent tribunal. I have been willing to leave it to commissioners, and have voted for propositions intended to effect that object. I have been willing to commit its decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, and it seemed to me that-organized as we all know that court to be-nothing more than this could be desired by the advocates of the Texas claim. Certainly the absence of all bias against the claim on the part of that tribunal will not be doubted. If neither of these modes of terminating the dispute should prove acceptable to Texas, I would-for one-consent cheerfully to refer the whole matter to the arbitrament of intelligent and disinterested individuals, whether Americans or foreigners. But in either case the question submitted should be the question of boundary, to be determined as a matter of law and fact, upon the acknowledged principles applicable to such cases.” 1

1 The claim on behalf of Texas was, that all the territory lying north and east of the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, belonged to her by a "good legal title, acquired previous to her admission into the Union, and rested not only upon the right of revolution, exercised at the time of the revolt against Mexico, but upon treaty stipulations also, and was therefore a part of the original territory."

The territory thus claimed to belong to Texas was of an average width of one hundred miles throughout its whole area, and was nearly two thousand miles long, and contained within its bosom some twenty populous towns and villages, whose

FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.

123

Mr. Chase's opposition to the fugitive slave bill of Mr. Mason (for the bill reported by the committee of thirteen received little or no consideration) was very earnest.

The bill of Mr. Mason contained some extraordinary features, as a brief recapitulation will show:

It provided for the appointment of not more than three commissioners in each county in the United States and in the organized Territories,' who were authorized to administer oaths, examine witnesses, and hear and determine all cases arising under the provisions of the act itself, relating to the arrest and return of fugitive slaves, concurrent with the jurisdiction conferred by the act upon the judges of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, severally and collectively, in termtime and vacation; and to grant certificates under authority of which fugitive slaves might be removed out of the State by their claimants. The marshals and deputy-marshals of United States courts were put at the command of these commissioners, and in addition they were authorized to appoint any number of "suitable persons" to execute the warrants and processes issued by them in pursuance of the act; and authority was conferred upon the commissioners and the "suitable persons" appointed by them, to summon and call to their aid the by-standers, or posse comitatus of the proper county, when necessary to insure a faithful observance of the clause of the Constitution referred to (that touching the delivery of fugitives from labor or service); "and all good citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient execution of this law, whenever their people as the opponents of Texas alleged-had never seen a Texan officer nor obeyed any other than Mexican laws. These opponents claimed further, that all this vast and important country had been conquered by the armies of the United States, and that the United States had acquired title to it by paying to Mexico its full value in money.

It is historically true, no doubt, that Texas had never exercised undisputed acts of sovereignty in that territory, but she had asserted her claim to its sovereignty under circumstances of great and tragic interest.

The question of the right to this immense extent of country was one of deep interest in its relations to the pending struggle on the subject of slavery. Texas asserted her claim even to the point of raising an army to enforce it as against the United States, though at the same moment the United States were supporting an army upon her frontier for the protection of her people against the Indians.

This was the provision in the bill originally presented in the Senate, January 4, 1850, but afterward modified as to the number of the commissioners.