{"character_count": 6570, "word_count": 1117, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9602000117301941], "ccnet_perplexity": [942.2000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
forable gentleman who participated in this debat,


ct an early period of the session, IMr. PettJ con
tended that in that clause of the Constitution
which authorizes Congress to make all "needtu
rules and regulations respecting the territory


the United States, there is contained the power tc
regulate slavery, and to prohibit the importa
]ion Of slaves into this territory. Now, Mr.. Chair


man, know the impatience withwhich the com


mlttee always listen 10 arguments in regard sto
constitutional questions. i shall not, therefore
proceed elaborately to discuss Them. But, sir
can it be supposed for one moment that it ever en-
tered into the conceptions o. the wise men who
framed the Constitution, that those words /" "heed


full regulations" would be construed to authorize
the prohibiting US from carrying our slave pro.
perty into the Territories of the United States


when they contended so strenuousIy, ably, and
Zealously, for the doctrine of the Constitution re-
cognising slaves as property, and protecting them?
Can this be true of The men who said the Union
should not be formed if they were not even per.
miued to import slaves for twenty years2 Is ii
possible that they ever supposed that under these
words needtul regulations" respecting territory
slavery could be confined within the limits where
it then existed, and that we should practically be
deprived OF our property being prohibited from
carrying 1t into territory won by our common pat.
riotsm, treasure, and blood No, sir; it never
entered into their conceptions. Were our wise
men who defended so ably southern tights, wide
awake on the subject of their slave property when
all other clauses were discussed, but asleep when
this was asserted ? Did they not understand the
meaning of langauge2 Is the word "needfuI "
synonymous with the word "expedent or Judi
Fcious 2" Or rather, do not photographers define
it TO mean necessary, indispensably requisite 2''
What is meant by regulations ?" Sir, the clause
of The Constitution which gives to Congress the
power to "reguLate Commerce" did any one ever
suppose that this gave US power to prohibit com.
mefce2 -- s-- - 7'.- -.~'


But the honorable gentleman from Pennsylva.
MIA, [Mr. Thompsonl the other day, very calmly
and dispassionately told US, if majority of Con
gress were of the opinion that it was "needfu
to prevent citizens fiom carrying their slaves into
the Territories belonging to the United States,
why, the doctrine of submission was incorporated
into the Constitution; and that we ought al ways
to bow to the will of the majority. am perfectly
willing to concede the propriety of a respectful
yielding on the part Of minori.ies; but, when
gentlemen place a strained and unnatural construc
lion upon clause oflhe Constitution the tenden.
cy of which is to infringe upon our rights and ul
timately to take away our property; and when, as
the only argument in defence of it, you reply to
u.s. that the doctrine of submission is ingrafed on
the Constitution, and we must bow to il without a
question: it is rather too heavy draught upon our
patience and philosophy.


Sir, it was said here the other day, that this is
not the Wiimot proviso." When the honora-
BILE gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Roberts]
was speaking the. gentleman from New York
IMr. Groverl almost interrupted him by denying
to be the Wilmot proviso." contending that il
is the 4" Jefferson proviso" The gentleman from
Ohio, IMr. ~Brinkerhof,l on yesterday affirmed
with great deal of zeal and eloquence, with an
air Of great triumph, that MIR. Jefferson counte.
nanced this doctrine; and the honorable gentle
man made great flourish here with the Journals
of the Congress of 1884. Now, in reply to this,
the first remark have to make is, that Mr. JEFF
ferson's proposition, whatever it was, was made in
l754-prior TO the adoption of the Constitution.
But it may be said the very fact that Mr. Jefferson
countenanced the doctrine of prohibiting slavery
in the Territory of the Northwest even then show
ed that, in his heart, he was opposed to the cxten-
sion of slavery l will remark that this was in
1884; that since that period, slaves have gone on
increasing, by the natural increase until there are
more than three millions; that, under the Consti.
tuition, the importation of slaves was allowed for
twenty years longer; and, if Mr.. Jefferson were
alive this day, acquainted with the history of the
slaves acquainted with the history of the South,
acquainted with the insidious design and hope u-
timately to abolish our slave property, by con6n-
ing it within narrow limits, until an exhausted
soil and a crowded population shall make it
burden and tax, he aoonld neosr for one moment
tolerate this [" Wilmot proposition" as matter
of policy, and certainly he too well Versed in
Constitutional law to countenance as constitu-
tiondI right. ..


That is the answer to the charge in reference to
Mr.. Jefferson, and the attempt 10 lendahc sanction
of his great name to this startling proposition TO
do gross injustice to onehalf of this Union in the
aame fphllanthropy, but in the spirit Of misguid
ed fanatcism


But, so far from his heart being inthe thing, one
of the proudest monuments erected to his fame
was the acquisition of Louisiana aciM SEaverv
and no anti-savery clausel So that Mr. Jeffer-
son, after the Constitution was framed, adorned
his administration by the acquisition of slave terri
tory and lived and died STAKEHOLDER himself


And not only are slaves recognised by the Con
stitution as property, but they are so recognised
in the first treaty of peace, in 1888; and in our
treaty at Ghent with Great Britain, article was
incorporated, making an express provision to in
demnify those of our citizens who lost their slave
property; and if you examine into the Journals of
Congress and the reports of committees, you will
see that bills were reported and passed, appropria
ting moneys to those whose slaves were lost. And
understand it is the fact, that Mr. Adams. the
venerable member from Massachusetts himself inS
troduced that article into the treaty and so avow
ed on the floor of Congress-


But know, Mr. Chairman, the great impor.
lance that is attached TO great names and it is very
natural that gentlemen should desire not only to
throw the mantle Of Jefferson, "the great apostle
of liberty" around their doctrines but also that of
Madison, the father the Constitution And l
heard the gentleman from Ohio [Nlr. Root] who
had the book, say he could read from it, TO show
that Mr. Madison, IN the Congress Of 1870, ad-


q