Message from the President-Peace with Mexico.

The Oregon Bill.

Mr. MCKAY suggested to the gentleman to modify his motion. There was another very important part of the Message-much more important than that which referred to the ap-importers of slaves, and, having an immense propriations necessary to carry the treaty into effect; for those would not be needed until the next session. He referred to that which proposed to authorize the President to purchase the stock of the Government, and suggested that that portion be referred also to the Committee of Ways and Means.

touched and interfered with by the General Government? Legislative discretion he regarded as limited by the object of the trust committed to it; and it did not extend to any interference with the question of slavery. There were States who did not regard the slave as a trust, as he was defined to be by the Senator from Vermont, but as a real property, which the owner, under the sanctions of the constitution, may take where he pleases. There are now three millions of slaves penned up in the slave States, and they are an increasing population, increasing faster than the whites. And are the slaves to be always confined within what may be deemed their prison States? He referred to the attempt to settle the manumitted slaves of John Randolph on lands purchased for that purpose in the State of Ohio, when they were forcibly driven off, to show the character of the humanity which was professed by the anti-slavery party.

That a slave was not property, but a mere incident to a domestic relation, as was asserted by the Senator from Vermont, he entirely denied. The slave was property under the construction of the common law. The first slave who landed on our shores brought his condition with him, and it was recognized by the colonial laws. That condition was, that he was the substantial property of his master-not temporarily, as in the case of master and apprentice, but for life. Writers have described him, not as an incident to a domestic relation, but as an incident to the right of conquest. What forms may be thrown round him by convention or by law, is another question. In Africa, they are either taken in battle or sold by parents; but they are in bondage-perpetual bondage; and this condition they bring with them here, and it is recognized by our laws. The first slaves were brought to Virginia in 1620, by a Dutch vessel, and were sold as merchandise; and this was done with the knowledge and permission of the British Crown. This proves that it requires no special legislation to institute slavery, but it must require a special law to abolish it. He denied the proposition that when a slave enters a free State, where there is no such domestic relation, he becomes free, on this ground, that the relation cannot be abolished without a special law. There was no law, originating under the present constitution, until 1820, which interfered with the right of the owner of a slave to carry his property with him into any of the States of the Union. Congress had never undertaken any thing more than to regulate the subject in the admission of any new territory.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Georgia, moved that the further consideration of the bill be passed over informally until to-morrow, which was agreed to.

FRIDAY, July 7.
Oregon Bill.

[JULY, 1848.

On motion of Mr. BRIGHT, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the special order, being the bill to establish a territorial government in Oregon; when

The question being on the amendment submitted by Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi

Mr. JOHNSON, of Georgia, said, that although the British Parliament was considered as omnipotent, still the meanest subject was protected in his property. How strange, therefore, must it appear, that the American Congress should be engaged in seriously discussing a question which affects the property of fifteen of the States of the Union! The admission of the right of Congress to prohibit slavery implies the right of Congress to establish slavery. And what would be thought if the fifteen slaveholding States were to come forward with a proposition to Congress to establish slavery in the States in which it does not now exist? Or, if it was proposed to prohibit any citizen of the free States from entering a slaveholding State with his property, would not the right of Congress to interfere be denied? He looked on the present question as a question of power, in which the numerical strength of the free States was to be arrayed against the feebleness of the South. In this condition, the South has only to say, "We stand still; we have not the power to resist." The South invokes the free States to stay their hands, and to yield obedience to the mandates of the constitution.

He referred to the restricted nature of our Government, and quoted from the authorities, to show the extent of the powers of Congress in reference to the Territories. He regarded the word "territory " in the constitution as meaning nothing more nor less than land. Congress had a right to protect this property, to cause surveys to be made, and to establish judicial districts and courts to try criminals who may commit offences against the property. Beyond this power, he thought, Congress could not go. Wherever the framers of the constitution intended to confer exclusive legislation, they inserted in the constitution proper terms to express that intention. The power of Congress to establish territorial governments, although it had been denied by some, he would be willing to admit, for the sake of argument. But if Congress had the power, it must use it in reference to its character as a trust-it must act as a mere agent. The territory is the property of the United States, and not of the Government of the United States. If Congress had the power to distribute the public lands among the several States, and were to do so, would it be tolerated if Congress were to give a portion of this land free, while it clogged another with the condition that no slave should be there? Yet the principle was the same in this case as in the effort to prohibit slavery in the Territories.

WEDNESDAY, July 12.
Oregon Bill.

[30TH CONG.

On motion of Mr. BRIGHT, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the special order, being the bill to establish a Territorial Government in Oregon; when—

Gentlemen had referred to former legislation | the further consideration of the bill was then on the subject, and had brought forward prece- passed over. dents to throw their light on our path. He examined some of these precedents, in order to show that they did not aid the purposes of those who had brought them forward. He stated that Mr. Dane, of Massachusetts, not Mr. Jefferson, was the author of the restrictive clause in the ordinance of 1787; so that all the weight supposed to attach to it from the name of Jefferson fell to the ground. Having been adopted before the existence of the present constitution, the ordinance could not properly be quoted as a legislative precedent under our constitution. He did not doubt that any of the great States had the right to establish slavery within their limits; yet, under this ordinance of 1787, the United States could not establish slavery within their territories. Looking at the ordinance as a compromise, neither party to such compromise parted with any of its respective rights. He had carefully examined all the acts which had been relied on to prove the power of Congress over slavery, and had found that, in part, they related to the powers exercised by Congress under the clause relating to commerce. Their only connection with the subject was in relation to the traffic of slaves.

The amendment of the Senator from Mississippi brought up the question, whether Congress had the right to interfere on the question of the transfer of slaves from one Territory to another. He maintained that Congress had reserved the power of the veto over the laws of a Territory; so that if a Territory should pass a law excluding slaves from a Territory, it would not be valid until it had received the sanction of Congress. He held that the constitution had as effectually precluded Congress from abolishing slavery, as it had excluded the assumption of titles of nobility.

He referred to the condition of the Mexican territories, to show that the prohibition of slavery is a political law there, and read an extract from a judicial decision to prove from the laws of nations, that a political law is changed, when by conquest, or otherwise, territory is transferred from one country to another. If a Carolinian were to go into these territories with his slaves, his property in these slaves would be recognized completely there. He stated that he intended to vote for the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. FOOTE reminded the Senator from Georgia, that their Northern friends had stood by the interests of the South, in resisting the Wilmot proviso.

Mr. JOHNSON said he had not the least intention to say any thing which could evince unkindness to the North. He admitted there had been occasions when the North had stood forward in behalf of the South. But he did not thank the North for offering them the Wilmot proviso.

On motion of Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts,

Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi, addressed the Senate. He commenced with a reference to the importance of the bill, the twelfth section of which discourses abolition. He denied that there was any intention to force slavery on Oregon. The South only desired to show the ground on which she has stood from the commencement of the Confederacy to this moment; and further, that she should be let alone. He stated that the Missouri compromise had obtained its validity from the consent of the States. Congress might enact laws on the subject, or make compromises; but without the consent of the States interested, they would have no validity.

As to the introduction of slavery into Oregon, no Southern Senator had ever asked it. The fact that the slave is property, which its owner may carry away with him into any part of the Union, was that which they were desirous to see recognized. The clause in the constitution relative to the regulation of commerce was a constitutional admission that the slave is property. It is because slaves are considered property that the importation of slaves from Africa has been carried on under the sanction of this clause in the constitution. The words "slave, or any other property," in the constitution, are conclusive on that point. If the existence of the slave as property be admitted, what power has Congress to interfere with it? He denied that there was any such power in Congress, What powers Congress possesses, he showed by reference to the constitution itself. Congress had no power to change the condition of slavery, or to strip the master of his right in his property. Entering a Territory with this property, the citizen has a right to its protection.

On the acquisition of Territory, the condition of slavery was not changed. The Government acquired no new power over it, but stood merely in the position of an agent for its protection. He spoke depreciatingly of the persons who had assumed in Oregon the right to make laws for the Territory, contending that they were without qualifications for the task. They were far inferior in intelligence, in morals, and in personal wealth, to the population lying south of the Oregon boundary.

As to the inviolability of the law which prevailed in a Territory when acquired, he admitted that until abrogated, the existing law or municipal regulation must remain in force

1ST SESS.]

The Oregon Bill.

[JULY, 1848.

within the territory itself. He denied that | be stained with the blood of brother fighting there was any power in Congress, or in the against brother. He trusted the danger would people of the Territory, to interrupt the slave pass away, and that this agitation would turn system. He gave his views as to the motives out to be nothing more than a temporary which induced Virginia to cede the North- struggle between politicians. western Territory, which originated in a patriotic and generous feeling on the part of the mother State. He regarded the course pursued by the Northern States in relation to fugitive slaves as an outrage on justice, and a violation of that principle of the equality of the States which is guaranteed by the terms of that instrument. The owner of a slave, when he entered some of these States, if he took his slave with him, was either exposed to the mortification of seeing his slave seduced from his side, or seized and carried away by violence. What remedy has been proposed by the opponents of slavery? What good have they done? They have abducted slaves, but emancipated none. Do they expect to persuade the South to give up slavery? It is probably for the political advantage of the section in which the agitation against slavery orignates. The spirit of concession exhibited by the South had failed to produce a corresponding spirit in the North. The latter still continued to assail the South as influenced only by a desire to increase the slave power, and obtain still greater political influence in the scale of States.

He insisted that the disorder and agitation which prevailed in the Southern States, was not of domestic origin, but came from New England and from Great Britain.

He asserted it to be the duty of the United States to protect the property of a slave-owner during the transit from one State to another. The resolutions of the States who favored abolition were adopted entirely with the view to obtaining additional political power, and imposed on the South the strongest obligation to rise in self-defence. He referred to the fraternal feeling which induced the Southern States to make common cause with the North in the war of the Revolution. The South had no especial cause of complaint; it was flourishing by its trade with Great Britain. But it was actuated by fraternal feeling and principle to take up arms; and now, was she to be asked to give up her domestic institutions? The South asked for no new guarantee, no new security; but she desired that the constitution should be preserved from violation.

If the spirit of the Missouri compromise was to be invoked, as was proposed by his friend from Indiana, (Mr. BRIGHT,) he had a right to ask that the South should be placed on a basis of permanent security, so that there may hereafter be no new agitation on the subject. He was willing to go far, as far as his principles would permit, to meet the North. But if nothing would satisfy the North short of the destruction of this institution, then was the time for dissolution come; but let us separate peacefully, and with good feelings towards each other. Let not the battle-fields of our country

Mr. CLAYTON rose and said, it was very evident that the speeches on the other side were rather intended to exasperate than to conciliate the South. He viewed the amendments which had been offered as clashing with each other; but nothing had as yet transpired during this protracted debate, to show on what ground it was expected that Senators could meet. There had been no indication of any sentiment by which the Senate could be guided to any result. He stated that the Committee on Territories was now engaged in preparing a bill relative to the new Territories; but as there were but four members on that committee, the work went on slowly. He referred to the course by which a compromise of the tariff question was entered into. A committee was appointed, to which the subject was referred, and the report of that committee conciliated both parties, and brought the question to a decision. He would now desire to adopt a similar course. He moved that the subject be recommitted to a committee of eight members, to be appointed by ballot, four to be selected from the North, and four from the South, and he would go further, and say, two from each party in the South, and two from each party in the North.

If the report of that committee shall be that nothing can be effected at this session, let us do our ordinary business and go home.

Mr. FOOTE expressed his regret that the debate had assumed the character it had. He had been ever ready to hail the tender of the olive branch from the North whenever it was made. And he rejoiced now that this offer had been again made, and from the distinguished Senator from Delaware. He hoped it would be responded to in the same spirit. But he would not pledge himself to cease, in case of a report from the committee that nothing could be effected at this session, from using every effort in his power to call the attention of the country to the subject.

Mr. FITZGERALD asked the Senator from South Carolina to explain away an aspersion which he had no doubt inadvertently-cast on the State of Michigan on the subject of fugitive slaves, as it appeared in his printed speech.

Mr. CALHOUN replied, by reiterating the charge against Michigan in still stronger terms, designating the course of that State, in reference to fugitive slaves, as the most outrageous that had ever been perpetrated.

Mr. CORWIN asked if the Supreme Court had not decided that no State could pass any law on the subject?

Mr. BUTLER replied, that the Supreme Court had decided, by a bare majority, that a State cannot pass a law in violation of any law of Congress. Pennsylvania made it a felony for a master to recover his fugitive slave in any