The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 284

                                
284
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
2Sy7toffl0'teD^Ctnlfa
Mr. B. having- feonciuded—
Mr. F. H. MORSE said that 'when he offered
this amendment, it was not his purpose to discuss it;
but he could not permit the extraordinary speech of
the gentleman from Virginia to pass without some
notice. I he gentleman made the complaint that so
humble an individual as himself, (Mr. M.) not be-
ing overmuch distinguished for his statesmanship,
should assume t° make any motion on' any subject.
Mr. BAYLY explained that he had made no such
complaint. lie had only complained of the gen-
tleman meddling with a subject he did not under-
stand, and with which lie had nothing to do.
Mr. MORSE continued. Well, that amounted to
nui Sa5il6> ,ri°' gentleman complained that he
(Mr. M.) s hould have moved so important a mat-
t®r- That was tantamount to saying: "Gentlemen
of the Worth, there are certain things you do not
understand; therefore be silent; you have no right
to interfere with them. There are some things be-
fore this Congress which you must not touch."
No; they must all be left to such distinguished
statesmen as the gentleman from Viiginia. He
pleaded guilty to one portion of the accusation of the
gentleman; he was a humble man, but this did not
deprive him of the rights of the representative of
nearly 90,000 free white men. He had not before
understood that it was a part of the tenets of the
modern "democracy" to make a distinction among
the members on this floor; he took it that they all
stood on the same ground here, and the day was far
distant when any denunciations of that honorable
gentleman should drive him from the ground he saw
fit to take.
Another complaint of the gentleman from Virgin-
ia was, that he (Mr. M.) came from the extreme
East. That was equally without foundation. He
would ask the gentleman if a roan's rights on this
floor were determined by the section of the country
from which he came.
To relieve everybody else from the responsibility
of this proposition, he would say that he had not
consulted with any single individual; he had offered
it 011 his own views, and he had offered it, he would
inform the gentleman from Florida, with "serious-
ness."
Mr. M. then proceeded, at some length, to reply
to Mr. A. V Brown, Mr. Belser, and Mr. Bayly,
and to argue the anti-republicanism of the provis-
ions of the constitution of Florida, prohibiting
foreign shipmasters from discharging colored sailors
withm that Territory, and prohibiting the legislature
of Florida from passing laws for the emancipation
of slaves in that Territory. He also glanced at
what he considered the general inexpediency of ad-
mitting into the Union States with so small a popu-
lation—Florida having, at the last census, only
28,000 citizens, not one-third of the number in his
(Mr. M.'s) district. He deprecated the efforts that
were made to enlist the authority and influence of
the general government in defence and perpetuation
of the system of slavery, as also the grasping dispo-
eitions manifested in certain quarters for the acquisi-
tion of territory. From slavery, and from the con-
tinued acquisition of territory, we were admonish-
ed, by the history of all past republics, that we had
more to fear than from any other cause. In the
course of his remarks he yielded, for purposes of
explanation, to Messrs. Burt and Bayly.
Mr. RATHBUN rose merely to make an expla-
nation in regard to the controversy between the gen-
tleman from Virginia [Mr. Bayly] and himself, in
reference to the law of New York. He found, on
examination of the statute, that he was mistaken;
that, although the act passed the lower branch, it
did not pass the upper branch of the legislature of
New York. He caused to be read a joint resolution
of that legislature bearing on this subject, and
gave other reasons which had led him into this mis-
Mr. CLINGMAN obtained the floor.
Mr. E. J. BLACK appealed to the gentleman to
allow him to offer an amendment.
Mr. CLINGMAN declined, remarking that he
had but a few words to say. He briefly stated his
opinion, that the gentleman from Maine [Mr.
Morse] had fallen into error in his construction of
the word "republican," and in his consequent ob-
jections to the two provisions of the constitution of
'Florida, which he had argued. It seemed to him
(Mr. C.) that they had nothing to do with either of
these features, as now brought up. The constitu-
tion of Florida was a "republican" constitution, in
the sense intended by the framers of the constitu^
tion of the United States; it was not a monarchical
one. He might object to some of the features of
the constitution if he were called to vote directly
upon them, but he wished to see the people left free
to judge for themselves in the matter.
Mr. LEVY obtained the floor, but yielded, for
explanation, to Mr. Douglass.
Mr. DOUGLASS said he did not lise to go into
a discussion of the slavery question, or the propriety
i ® va!*10us provision of the constitutions of Iowa
and t lorida. His object was merely to explain the
S'r°uUI, , up011 which he shouId rest his vote-
While he approved most of the provisions of the
constitution of Iowa, there were some for which he
could not record his vote, were he a member of a
convention for the formation of a constitution.
Some of the provisions of the Florida constitution
were still more objectionable—positively obnox-
ious—so much so, that he never could sanction and
endorse them by any vote ofhis. But docs the bill be-
fore the House require an endorsement and appro-
val of each and every provision of those constitu-
tions? Must each member of the House endorse
every article of those constitutions? The praciicacal
effect of such a rule would be to exclude all new
States from the Union in future. The great diver-
sity of opinion, growing out of the variety of cli-
mate, soil, productions, pursuits, and customs,
would preclude the hope of procuring a general con-
currence of sentiment in favor of every provision of
any constitution. Some would require a restrict-
ed suffrage, others universal; some a distinction
founded on property, others on color, citizenship,
and a groat variety of qualifications to be found in the
constitutions of the several States. The same diffi-
culty would arise in regard to the tenure of office,
slavery, and many other regulations and institutions
peculiar to each State, and domestic in its character.
Mr. D. had not time to go further into detail.
Sufficient had been said to show tliatj it could never
have entered into the minds of the framers of the
constitution that Congress was to pass upon the
propriety and expediency of each clause of the con-
stitution of the new States. The people of each
State are to form their constitution in their own way
and in accordance with their own views, subject to
one restriction only; and that was, it should be re-
publican in its character. That the constitutions of
Iowa and Florida prescribed a republican form of
government in the sense in which that term was
used in the constitution of the United States, he en-
tertained no doubt. Every one of the objectionable
features to it were to be found in the constitutions
of several of the present States of the Union. Old
Virginia was supposed to be a republican State
with a republican form of government; still he was
informed that these same obnoxious provisions were
to be found in her constitution, as well as in those
of several other States. But merely because those
objectionable features are incorporated into their
constitutions—because some of the piovisions arc
unwise, impolitic, and unsatisfactory, it by no
means follows that the form of government itself is
not republican. These constitutions do not es-
tablish monarchies, nor aristocracies, nor any
combinations of the two, nor any other known
forms of government-, except republican States.
If they are not republics, they are nonde-
scripts. But all the objections refer to
regulations and institutions, local and domestic in
their character. Mr. B. had doubts as to the power of
Congress to reject a State, being now a part of the
territory of the United States, merely on account of
her peculiar domestic institutions. It was clear to
his mind, that whenever a new State was admitted
into the Union, it came in on an equal footing, in
all respects, with the original States; and all attempts
to deprive her of that equality, by act of Congress,
was in derogation of the constitution of the United
States, and consequently void. The several mem-
bers of this confederacy stand upon an equal footing,
possessed of the same powers and rights, and 'sub-
ject to the same conditions and restrictions. Many
of the northern States have, at different periods, as-
serted and exercised the right of establishing and
abolishing slavery, each for itself, without reference
to the wishes of Congress or any other State. If the
old States had this power, he could not discover
how it could be denied to the new ones. When
new States were admitted into the Union, they be-
came sovereign in all respects whatever, except in
those cases where the constitution of the United
States had imposed restrictions. All attempts to
impose lestriclions and fetters, by act of Congress,
were vain and litigatory. A man might as well at-
tempt to impose restraints upon the free action of
his son -after his arrival at full and lawful age, as
Congress to fetter the action of the Territories after
their admission into the Union as States.
The father may bind the son during bis minority;
but the moment he attains his majority, his fetters
are severed, and he is free to regulate his own con-
duct. So with the Territories; they are subject to
the jurisdiction and control of Congress during
their infancy, their minority; but when they attain
their majority, and obtain admission into the Union,
they are free from all restraints and restrictions, except
such as the constitution of the United States has
imposed upon each and all the States. Illinois, by
the free will of her own people, came into the
Union without slavery, and with a constitution de-
claring that slavery shall never exist. Still Mr. D.
contended that the people had the same right to
change their constitution in regard to slavery, as
those of any other State. Congress could not pre-
scribe a constitution to a State, nor deprive them
of the power of changing their own, whenever they
shall choose.
Entertaining these views, Mr. t>. intended to
vote for the admission of Iowa and Florida; and lie
protested at the same time that such vote ehould not
be • considered as an approval of all the provisions
of their constitutions.
Mr. ADAMS (Mr. Levy still yielding the floor)
wished to ask the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Douglass] one question. Suppose the constitution
of Florida or Iowa contained a provision that no
citizen of Illinois should ever be admitted into those
States: would the gentleman vote for it?
Mr. DOUGLASS would say to the gentleman
from Massachusetts that such a provision would be
null and void, for the reason that it would in deroga-
tion of the constitution of the United States, and
would be dccided by every judicial tribunal to be of
no force.
Mr. ADAMS. Would the gentleman vote for it?
Mr. DOUGLASS would not vote for such a pro-
vision, but would not care whether it was in the con-
stitution or not, as it would be a nullity. Nullities
had no terrors for him,
Mr. ADAMS. That is precisely the case of the
present provision, in its operation upon the citizens
of Massachusetts, and other northern States.
Mr. LEVY resumed. The gentleman from
Maine had convinced him that he was serious,
but had not convinced him that the amend-
ment deserved to be treated with seriousness.
What was the case presented by this amend-
ment? The government of the United States, after
receiving by treaty the transfer of a country inhabit-
ed by a very considerable population, in favor of
whose rights a provision had been made in that
treaty for their admission into the Union on terms
of equality with the other States; after having dis-
membered and distributed that territory; after hav-
ing given to Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana,
a large portion of the domain that belonged to that
people, and thus cut off from them a great portion of
the benefits they expected to derive from that nego-
tiation; now, by the vote of yesterday, they were de-
prived of the rights clearly recognised by that treaty.
Now, after thus tyrannically and wrongfully re-
ducing them to a condition inferior to what they
have a right to demand, it was proposed to extend to
them the further guardianship of the government by
doing—what? By making them a constitution; as if
they were not capable, and had not the right, to make
one themselves. Yow not only propose, (said Mr.
X..) to reduce their just relative weight in the con-
federacy, but you propose to the freemen of Florida
a constitution of your own making. Sir, (said
Mr. L.,) all this excess of kindness is utterly thrown
away on a people who are unwilling to receive it.
The gentleman from Maine said he proposed by
his amendment to do less than was done in
the case of the State of Missouri. The gentle-
man either did not read as he did, or did not con-
strue the resolution declaring the admission of
Missouri into the Union with the same understand-
ing as his. In the case of Missouri, what was done?
He spoke not of the compromise act by which
the limits of slavchloding and non-slaveholding
States were defined, but of the resolution declaring
the admission of Missouri into the Union as a State.
That resolution did not require that the new State
should hold a convention to repeal her constitution.
No; it did no more than give construction to a
clause of the constitution of the United States—-the
same construction that would be given by the Su-