Newspaper Page Text
Me will cling to he PillaTS of te Temple of our L andf gWust fall, we will Perish amidst the Ruins."
YOLIiTIEXU- IC I' " MI a ? Da "~~e - . PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY. . BY WiM. F. DURISOE, DITOR & PROPRIETOR. NEW TERMS. Two DOLLARS and FIFTs CENTS, per annum, if paid in advance -$3 if not paid within six months from the diate of subscription, and $1 if not paid before the expiration of the year. All subscriptions will be continned, -unless othervise ordered before the expira tion of the year ; but no paper will be dis. -continued until all arrearages are paid, un less at the option of the Publisher. Any person procuring five responsible Sub. scribers, shall receive the paper for one year, gratis. AavERTsEMETs conspicuously inserted at75 cents per square. (12 lines, or less.) for the first insertion. and 37. for each continuance.. Those published monthly or quarterly, will be charge:: $1 per square. Advertisements not having the number of insertions marked on them, will be continued until ordered out and charged accordingly. Communications, post paid, will be prompt ly and strictly attended to SPEECH OF THE HoN. R. B. RHETT, or Sou-ru CAROLINA. On the Oregon Territory Bill, excluding Slavery from that 'J'erritory-the Ais souri Compromise being proposed and - rejected. Mr. Rhett rose and said : alr. Speaker : I agree in opinion. with hose who have expressed rcpet at the in -troduction of the subject of slavery at the present session into the discussions of Con. gress. It was introduced here, at the last session, most unwarrantably, I think, from Pennsylvania, on the proposition to ap propriate two millious of money to facili tate a peace with Mexico. On the same proposition, it has been again introduced, at the present session, from New York , and, on the bill before you, it stands out, in strong relief, in the clause prohibiting slavery in the Oregon Territory, after a vote refusing to recognize the Missouri 'Compromise. Under such circunstat ces, it appears to tme impossiblo to avoid the agitation of this question. The South is compelled to defend herself, or stand saute and inactive under aggression and insult. The present stute of thitrp, is not the growth of yesterday. \Vhen 1eame here te years ag found the question of .' he poicy.A. then proposed had been pursuedt, I think. it would have been stpres.sed, and sup pressed effectually. A tember from Ver tnutt, since made a (overuor (7 that State, on account of tl.e hostility he dis. played to the itnstitutions of the South, thought proper to en:er upon The-discus sion of slavery in the States. .- I proposed to the Southern gentlemen, that we should leave this Hall. They did so; and had they followed up that decisive step, with tither corresponding measures, to protect themselves and their people from insult and aggression, upon this floor, on the sub ject of slavery, we would have had peace, and the Union greater s-rcngth. There are occasions, with States as with indi viduals, when in courage only, there is safety; and boldness, is true wisdom. We faltered; and from that day to this, I have witnessed anti-slavery agitations at every Congress which has since assembled.: The very men who told is that the 21st rule was the cause of these agitations, have themselves now commenced it, although that rule is repealed ; and we are involved in war, and the territory is not yet obtained from which they propose in the South to exclude slavery. Democrats nowv, not Whigs, are the assailants; whilst both par ties from the free States, join itt our exclu sion and detnunciation. Sir, I do not think wye cati avoid this question ; andI, if we are to meet it, the sooner the better-the bet 'ter for cte South, the better for the whole Union. The question made by the bill is, has Congress the power of excluding the peo ple of the Southern States from entering and colonizing with their slaves the terri -tories of the Utuited States ? Thte gentle man from Indiana, (Mr. Pet tit,) and oth era, affirm that it lhas, because the sover eignty over the Territories is itn the Gov ernment of the United States. That is their position; and the only position wheich can justify their conclusiorg; for in my judgment therecannot be a higher act of sovereignty than determining the persons ivho shall coas'.itute mtembers of the body Solitic, or be excluded from the terfitory belonging to a State. If the principle is jrood, that sovereignty over our territorie~s is ins either Congress or the Government of the United States-i yieltd the conclu 'ion-the rtight in Congress to. exclude slavery from their limits.. The discretion in Conigress rules the questio, ; a majority governs thle minority ; and, for one, I will bow in acquiescence. --iht 1-deny the p~rinciple; I deny that sovereignty is in either Congress or this Governument. To shiow where the sovereignty is, in our sye tens of gosvernmec t, must carry us up to its first principles, and there I propose to lead the argument. Before, however, wye enter tupon the merits of the grave questions itnvolved in the discussion, it is ot' the utmost impor tanco that wveshould understand the terms wve use. H aif of the sophistries in argu ment, consist in the abuse of words. It is about sovereig'nfy, wye are to reason. WVhat does the wvord sovereegnsty, mean ? The mneaning of the ternm, is well utnder stood by publicists: and by those of Eng land, frotr whence we have chiefly de government, it is defined to be, "the su preme ultimate authority in a State." This authority must exist somewhere, or else there can be no government; and it is chiefly in making or unmaking the funda meutitl law, or constitution of a State, that its supreme attributes are displayed. Its powers, indeed, are exercised in all the actions of the government ; since all, the very least, directly or indirectly. emanate from its authority. But the powers of sovereignty are one thing. and its being is another. The faculty of speech, and the use of our limbs, are powers of a man, but they are not the man. And so it is, with sovereigntin a State, which exists not only in the forms of its action, bnt it beiag the source, the principle of all ac tion, the supreme ultimate authority, by which all forms of action in government exist. In despotisms, sovereignty exists in the will of a single individual, which, for. the time being, is the fundamental law. In mixed governments, like that of Eng land, all her publicists agree. that the sov ereignty is the King, Lords. and Commons in Parliament. It republican govern ments, like ours, I shall maintain that it is in the people of the States. Now, let us examine, first, before we ascend to general principles, the clause of Constitution, on which the gentleman from Indiana relies. to show that sovereignty over the territories, is in the Government of the United States. "The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory or other property belonging to the United States." Here, in the first place, nothing is said about the Government of the United States. Whatever power is conceded by the clause is conceded to "the Congress." What is Congress ? The first clause in the Constitution answers "All. legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." I'be Senate and House of Representatives, are very far short of being the Government of the United States. But let us stride over this ditficulty. al tbough rather awkward for a stict con struction. Suppose Congress to be the Government, wiat power does the clause convey? "To dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations concerning, the territory or. other propdrty belong ing ,tothe United States." Does the power "so dispose of and make all needful rules la. -a i ,.. tsimpjy, sovereinjity.? Mark, sir, how far short this phraseology is.in its scope. of-that other clause itn the Constitution, which relates to the other property of the United States-the forts, arsenals, magazines, and dock yards. Over these, and over this district, Congress "is to exercise exclusive legislation in all, cases tchatsoct.cr." Does not the clause, relate to the territory only, as property and confer only powers necessary for its disposition and control as property ? It speaks of the territories in connexion with the other property of the United States. Congress can sell the lands lying within the territory, and to secure purchasers and settlers in their persons and properly, they can make "all needful rules and regula tions," es'ablish territorial governments, and pass- laws. This it appears to roe, is all the authority the cbuse confers; and this authority is vested, not in the Govern ment, but in Congress. Suppose the ow ners of a factory should convey to an ;agent the power contained in this clause, to dis pose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning it, would that make him the proprietor ? On the contrary in feretie arise from his accepting such a trust ? Yet this is latnatge, by which sovereignty is elaitmed to be int the Gov erumenit of the United States, authorizing the expulsion of 'one- half of the States out of our territories but the clause itself, directly repudiates the idea that either Congress or the Govertnment havo nny prc perty, much less sovereigty over oiur territories. Its words are, "territory atnd othter property belonging to the United States." Here is a direct afiirmatton, that our territory does ttot "belong" either to Congress or the Goverotntent. Now, although it does not follow that where there is property (for property may belong to individuals) there is sovereignty ; yet where there is no property; over an un settled cduntry, there cannot be sovereign ty. The "supreme ultimate authority" cannot exist wthere tere is neither the tn ferior right of property, which extsts in individuals, or the higher righttby the em ioent domaitt. Theo clause, however, does dot stop at negativing, by implication, the idea that the Govenm~ent hesthie sov ereignty over our Itritories, but it direct ly asserts where the pmoperty, antd the sovereignty over them are-belonging to thme United States. H ere is thte great troth which dissipates all diists and fallacies. Sir, it is a truth, vital to all free popu lar governments, thtat sovereignty can never be in Government. Ttte funda mental doctrine, on which all our free in stitutionts rest, is that Government is not h-. ing of itself; but is simply the agent of the people- Make government sovereign, and the people are subject. They are ruled, and do not rule themselves. To attempt to alter, change, or abolish thge forms of government over them, wif then, not be a right in the people, hut reason to then existing government, ;for which they may rightfully be gibbeted or put to ite sword, 1 repeat the position, that sovereigtty i free popular government, can never be in the Government. It is, under our system~ of government, neither in the General noi in the Stale Governments. Both are but adc,to cnarry on in co-oneration, the grandest scheme of free governments the world has ever seen, on the part of the people-the people of the States, who alone are sovereign. They voting as sep arato political communities, made the Constitution and Government of the Uni ted States. Each State, voted on every clause of the Constitution reperately; and seperately, as the whole, adopted it for itself, Rhode Island and North Carolina remained long out of the Union, after, the Government was in full operation over other States. The States. were sovereign before they entered the Union-sovereign to keep out of it or to enter it-and sov ereign now, unless it can- be clearly shown that they have surrendered-their soverein ty. That they are sovereign' now, noth ing can proclaim more clearly, than their: control over the whole system of Govern ment. Next to creating a government, the greatest test of sovereignty is the power to alter, change. or abolish it. Where does this power reside by the Constitution ? In the States. As they made it, as co-equal sovereigns, without any agreement on their part, by the assent of every State only, could the Constitution, their joint compact, lie amended. No other State or States can alter or change the coustitu tiou or laws of a sovereign State. unless there is an agreementt to that effect; and then this agreement operates as a practical adoption of the amendments by the State. The same sovereign authority, which made the agreement with another State, sanctions and authorizes amendments to the Constitution, made in conformity to its powers. The States hive modified their sovereign authority in this respect. They have expressly agreed, in the fifth article of the Constitution, that the will of aoil shall not be :tecessary to amend it ; but that ,hree-fourths of them (each State acting separately) shall change Constitu tion and Government at their discretion. Here, then the creating power and the amending power in this Government are both with the States. Where else can the sovereignty reside ? Gentlemen say with the Government. WrVy the Gov ernment can absolutely do nothing what ever, to alter or to change a single feature of its organization. It is powerless to amend, as it was to create, the Constitus tion. Was it ever heard of before, that sovereignty resides, where not only there ;iano.supreme ultimate authority, :but no authority whatever to touch the organic law.? Here, in this Govern-nent, is su bordination-absolute subrdiuation-ho creature and''dependenit o tfie 'Stt'rr its form of existence, and existence itself; yet the Government is sovereign ! Can any thing produce such positions, but the grossest confusion of ideas, and abuse of terms ? Congress, it is true, can do a little towards amending the Constitution. It cau,I(t wu-thirds ufboth branches agree ing.) propose am'endtttnts for the consid eration of the States. l5nt this is all it can du. They may consider or not con sider. reject or adopt such amendments, according to their sovereign discretion. Nor is the power of moving in the matter of amendments, alone with Congress. Every State, by its legislature, can pro pose amendments, and when two thirds of thetm agree, on application to Congress, "Congress shall call a convention of all the Siatey" to consider the Constitution. liut the power of proposing amendments, does not imply sovereignty On the ct-u trary, if this was all the pcwer retained bu the States over the Constitution, it would be an infallible proof that they had alienated their sovereignty. Sovereignty consists in the actual supreme authority, by which the Constitution and Govern mient is changed. Titis, is in the States nod may be exercised by thetm, although Congress, itn both brantches, anid overy ma~n in lhe Governrtnent of the t nited States, tnay be opposed to its exercise. Congress has no option in the matter; when the States demunid a convention, to revise the Constitutitt, "Congress shall call a convention," They are mnerely the instrumrent, by which the sovereign parties to the Constitution, make known to each other, their scvereign will to revise their compact. The conventionl, therefore assembles at their call ; and any amend ments it may propotse goes to the States alone, who sanction or reject themt ; thtey displaying throughout, that supreme ulti mate authority in which sovereignty con sists.' But thtero is another test, the strongest. excepting the amendiag power, to show wvhere sovereignty resides in a Govern ment. Treason is a r iolation, otn thte part of a citizen or subject. of his allegiance to his sovereign. To showi where stovereignty is itn our Governmetnt. we need butt show, against whom the Constitution says trea sotn must he committed. The framers of the Constution had themselves been tooi long near the perils of treason, not to un derstand the sigtuification of the term, and the strict necessity of piutting it on its true relation between citizent andesovereign. It affects too the existence of the body poli tie; and therefore, has ever beea conside red the highest in the catalogue of crimes; always, by all nations, punished with death. What Says the Coustitution i Surely if Congress or thte government is sovereign, treason will Consist in some way or other in resisting their suprme au thority. The words of the Constitutiun ai-e, "treason against. the United States shall consist only in 'he~ying war -against them, or adhering to their enemies giving them aid atnd comfort." Ifere, apparently, as a matter of course, the United -States, are alone mentioned as those against whbom treason can be committed; and it consists, in Ineing war naninst them, or ndheringr .to eirdenet ies. The wvords them and the:howt cl ajy that the United States dtlt consist of a single sovereignty; for tb r : ould have been used in tie Co ti 'on. :But it consits of many sovereigaties, the States of the Union united.. Ag t them, therefore, the wsr must be1 ied, or the adherence must be to their et mies, to constitute that vio lation of alle ice.due to sovereignty, in which treain( naists. It would be bold argumenti .- e face of this plain declar tationjin tli" ofltnstion, to contend that sovereignty, in the people. That used to b tlsb o . heresy of consolidations; although, i i t of fact, there never has - suchlpeople ild unless by revolution, neeian.b jut it is still bolderto main tatitaL so gniv, is in Congress or in the Govern to Neither Congress, nor the Govert . nor the people of the United Sta re mentioned in the Con atitution as ole against whom treason can be com ped. But, bad the Consti tution asser ;that the people of the Uni ted -States, a single people, should be sovereign i ecoufederacy, and be those against wh treason should be commit ted,-it wo 'bave asserted a very plau sihle theory ' vjich a large party in the Union,, fro its commencement, have been etadea'r iug, to engraft upon it, by usurpation.' tihe great fundamental doc trine of our free institutions, that the, peo ple are soveljigo, would not be contra vened by such a theory. But, to put up Congress or the Government as sovereign. is an :aristocracy of fe'leralisrn, that I believe, has never heretofore been heard of. until this debate. Mr.. Speaker;it is these same "United Statdg.tagainst whom treason can alone be coin'mitte'd,;io whom the Constitution, in its third soction- affirms that our terri tories belutig"belonging to the United States." Ire least reflection, it appears to me, woud:shew, that the territories could, undcn:o .system of Government, belong no wger'e else. If this Government was-made-bythe States-is alterable alone by the Stoles= in fact, belongs to the States-to "ho M, but the States, should any territo squired by this Government, their. comt : -agency belong i na the yery ntai things, an agency can never be saprem .-la the very nature of things, territory ac aired, whether by cou-uest or treaty, musibelong to the soveieigivy of the cuunttytzcquiring it. I think, there fore, thiat t theory of the Constitution, as we-as vords .of the Constitution, pl 'CU. igtyovcr our-territory. in the State Sut suppose there was room for doubis, grave doubt'on both these points,-where, I ask, ought presumptions and constrimciions to place the sovereign power ? Surely it ought tut to be on light grounds, that the soverereignty of a State can be wrested from her. Sovereignty, is the life of a State. It is the lat thing, it can or will surrender. When she parts with it, she commits political suicide ; and transfers the allegiance of her citizens, and their paramount obligation to prutect and defend her, to the comanraud of others. If a State, like the States i.i this Union, has been sovereign, (which the declaration of independence, and the articles of confede ration expressly alfirmt, and no tuo demes.) ought it not to be clearly shown that she has surrendered her sovereignty ? It can not be surrcnterod in part, or retained in part. It is "the supreme ultinate author ity," and therefore must be wholly retained or wholly alienated. Subjection or subor dination of any kind, is absolutely incon sistent with sovereignty. Where is the clause in the Constitution, shewing that this supreme power over their destiny, has been surrendered by the States ? There is not one, which eveni looks to any such concession ; hut, on the cont rary, there are several, ike those I have referred to, ex pressly showing that they have folly re tained their sovereignty. But if these did not exis:, shall the States be shorn of their sovereignty by implication-by construc tion ? The Constitution is nothinag hot a collection of powers. which the sovereign States have agreed to exercise together by a comm ton agency, thie Government ; .and it is a vast r.'suintprion, to claim any pow ers for this ugency, but those expressly and plainly granted ; but to construe the life out of a State-to infer a political '-febo de so," is a species of logical prof~igacy, which only suits the argument of the sfotrd - Sir, these views bring me to the extra ordinary position of the gentlematn from lilinois, (Mr. McClernand.) H e deals in inferences on quite:a asplendid scale, not -applicable to our Government only, bhit to -all governir~ents. lIe puts the sovereignty of Coangress, or the Government, over our territory, not en any grant in the Constitu tion, bitt upon the groun I, that it is an in cident to all goticrnmnent to acquire senri tory ; and Go'verniment having lay this tan thority acquired territory, is sovereign over it. 'Now,- admii the prtinciple contended for, that it is a necessary incident to all gov ernment t : acquire territory, does the con clttsion follow,-that the Government, in our systenm of Government, is sovereign over the, territory ? After the territory is acquired. it matters not by what authority, does it not fall under the provisions of. the Constitution ? If it does, then the restric tions in the Constitiution, determine with whom lies the property, as well as sover eignty, over the territory. But if it does not fall under the provisions of tho Con stitution, then Congress, or the Govern ment, may give it .away to a foreign na tion, or a erect a monarchy within its lim its. Being sovereign, by a sort of politi cal convenience, it can be responsible to no superior will or control. But, T submit. such conclusions must appear from their simple statement, to be wrong. All the provisions of the Constitution, or none, extend over territory acquired., All the provisions of the Constitution extend over themn-those guaranteeing a republican form of government to all the States ad hitted, or to be admitted. into the Union, arising in our territories-.prohibiting or ders of =nobility-securing the habeas cor pus act, and trial by jury, to the citizen and especially that provision in the Con stitution defining the powers of Congress aver our territories, and declaring to whom hey belong-all are of force over any ac muired te'rritory. Congress has no legisla tive powers, but those "herein granted" -granted in the Consttution. But is the principle of the gentleman, sounder than his conclusion ? "It is the necessary in cident to all government to acquire terri tory !" Sir, I think it would have been better if the gentleman had announced his proposition in another form "It is the ne iessary incident of all government to rob." F~or why should government have, as a necessury incident, the right of despoiling a neighbor of his territory, and not take his other property ? Land is only one spe :ies of property. It may not be a whit less convenicut, and far more valuable, to take ships on the ocean, or levy contribu tion'- from cities or towns. The republic if Rome seemed to think that it was a ne :essary incident to their government, to exact trilte from all nations. Their ter ritory, they scorned. The Barbary pow ers, a short time since, confined this ne eessary incident i, their government to the Sea ; and the commercial nations of all lEurope, were put under contribution. We, however,, did not like the doctrine, and abolished-it at once, by the potent ar gumeuts of gunpowder and cotton. Mex ico, also, has carried out this incident to her government, in despoiling our citizens of tmany utillions. Sir, I think to acquire territory, or any other property, is not an incident to any government- Territory may be desirable or convenient to a eoun try, or it may be injurious and dangerous. Location and circumstances, must deter mine the question of interest. Take the case which gives rise to this disectission. Is. the acquisition of territory from Mexi co, necessary to the existence or liberties of the Union? . No one will aflirni thatit is whilit the veil of futirity- covers-so thickly its results, that whether;, i.will' provo a blessing pr a curse, will streca'lien or dissplve .rhe Ulnion, ish.tbd e'lthe of fiercest speculation. Buta Ttthz~ben efit-when territory is ae4uired, it must belongto those .to whom-the goveinment belongs. If the government belongs to a despotism, then the. territory belongs to the despot; but ifthe government belongs ti the people, thet the territory belonys to the people-the people of the States, with whom, in our system of government. sov ereignty exists. Where the Government of the United States, cain acquire a terri tory for the people of the United States, is no longer ra question. The power was strongly doubted on our first acquisition of territory ; but the Supreme Court, and the subsequent action of the Government, have settlad the question. But it n::ver has been settled, that the Gjvernment of the United States is sovereign over the Terri tories; and ate, therefore, beyond the reach and limitations otthe Constitution. Another doctrine has been announced, only a little variant from that of the gen tleman from Illinois. . It is said, that there is an inherent sovereignty in the Govern ment of the United States, whereby it ac quires territory; and when acquired, this iuherent sovereignty operates over the territory. beside antd above the Constitu tion. it is not easy to answer this posi tion, because there is no reasoning in it. It is naked assumption; and if it is good in regard to the territories, 1 cannot per ceive that it will not hold good as to any other ohject of government. it therefore, abulishtes the Cotnstitution. I may not, however, undlerstand witat gentlemen mean hy inherent sovereignty. In one sense, all sovereignty is inherent; but 1 suppose the word "inhterent" to be used as contra-*distingu ished from derived. For merely it w as argued, that sovereignty in the General Governtmetnt, was derived from the States, through the Constitution of t he United States, which..granting soy ereigt powers. gratnteud sovereignty, In this view, the sovereignty must be co extensive with the granted powers only. But this wvill not suit the new advocates for sovereignsty. in the present emergency. It will restrict the alleged soveigtn powers within the terms of the Constitution ; and the Constitution gives Congress only the. power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning the terri-1 tory and other property belonging to the United States. 'rhis a is decided rebuffijto their pretensions. They therefore got up this inherent sovereignty in the Govern ment to acquire territory, that the Gov ernment and Congress may be absolute over it when acquired, and the free States may, by their itnstrumentality, appropri ate it all to themselves. Sir, here is a doctrine, at which the old Federalists of'98 and '99 would have stood aghast. They regarded the Constitution, as paramount to the Government in all its operations. They never pretended to deduce any powers, but from its express piovisions. They inferred powers, by re fined construction, whea they passed the alien aatd sedition lawvs :but they never claimed powers, much less the highest of all powers-annihilating th'e Constitution -annihilatieag the State sovereignties, and ceangn an irresponsible desnotism in the Union ; -they never claited inherent sov ereigo power to be in the General Govern - ment. As citizens of proud . tommon wealthy, as freeman in 'the Confederacy,. they would have spurned "the idea, that. the Government, in any of its operations, was. above the Constitution, above the States, and above the people=-capable, by its des potic behests, of acquiring territory, end then lording itsupremne over the territory.. when acquired. Why. sir,.canno; lgen tlemen perceive, that when they~alk'of the - Government being supreme is suah a mat. ter, they in fact vest the sovereignty in the President ? Who is to acquire the territo ry, whether it be by cession or by con quest ? The Executive must be the Gov ernment in the whole affair; and, if the Constitution does not apply to it, why should he submit the matter to the consid eration of the Senate ? Why should .ho asl' Congress for, means? Sovereignty over a matter, implies omnipotence over the means as well as the end. He may. raise armies, and the taxas necessary to support them. He may enter on a career - _ of conquest; for his discretion, .if he is soveriga must govern as to th. territory it is the sovereign incident of lie Govera ment to acquire, and the gray of acquiring it. All his acts must be legitimate, no matter what may he tbp consequences; end all that the~ people of the United. States will have to do will be to obey: They, agd the Constitution of the United States, will be thrustais impertinences, in - the career of his new sovereignty. if it ii to be inherently sovereign to acquire, and sovereign to rule after the territory is .ac quired; to say that it is not to be inherently,.. sovereign also, as to the .means to acquire. and rule, is arrant nonsense. [t must lie - so, in the very nature of things; once Put - the Constitution aside ; and disguised as it may be, soft phrases and honied profes- - ions, his inherent sovereignty, in .all its monstrous proportions, stalks forth, in argument, "every/inch asking." THlESLAVEEY'QUESTION. . I.v SENATE, Friday, Feb. 19, 1846. Mr. C alhoun rosetand said: Mfr. President,. I rise to offer a set of resolutions in reference. , ~to the various resolations froni the State legiss latures upon the subject of what they-call the extension of slavery, and the ~proviso attached toilin House bill, calledithe three million till. What I propose before I send my resolutions to the table, is. to.make a few-explanatory re marks: : - Mr4 President,..it, as olemnly asseited o*.. this floorsome time.ago. th1 a21,pattes ni ilie non-slavehol: e adcineaaYV ^rw tt~ tions. One was; thit here hound be r" + ther-admiasion of any States nto, this Union . " - which permitted by their constitution the exi tence ofslavery; and the other~wastihat slav cry shall not hereafer exist in any of the Terri, tories of the United States. the effect of which would be to give to the nun-slaveholding Stat.s. the monopoly of the public domain, to the en tire exclusiojn of the. slave-holding States.-. Since the declaration was made, Mr. President; we have abundant proof that there was a satis. - factory foundation, for it. We have received . already solemn resolutions passed by seven of the non-slaveltolding States-one-half of the inmber already in the Union, Iowa not being - - counted-using the strongest possible language. to that effect; and no doubt in a short space of. time similar resolutions will be received from all of the non-slavelholding States. But we. need not go beyond the walls of Congress. The - subject has been agitated itn the other House, and they have sent you up at bill -" prohibiting the extension of slavery" (using their own. lingnage) " to any territory which may be ac-; quired by the United States hereafter." At. the same time two resolutions which have been, moved to extend the compromise line from the". Rocky monutains to the Pacific, during the present session, have been rejected by a decid ed majority. Sir, there is no mistaking the signs ' of the. times; and it is high time that the southern. States, the slave-holding States, shioutld inquire. what is now their relative strength in this Union, and what it will he if this determination should' be carried itnto effect hereafter. Sir, already. ive are in the minority-I use the word "we" for brevity sake-already wve are in the wainor - ity in the ther llouse, in the electoral college, - and, I may say, in .every department of thia' government, except at present in the Senate of the United States; there for the present we have an eqnality. Or the twenty-eight .States,. fourteen are non slaveholding and fourfeen are: slaveholding, counting Delawctre, which is doubtful, as one of.the non-slaveholding States., But this eqnality of strentgth erists only ini. t1e . Senate. One of the clerks at my request has. lfarmrshed me with i statement of what Is the. relative strength of the -two descriptions of. States, in the other House of Congrs, and in the clectoral college. There are 228 represen tatives, including Iowa, which is already re presented there. Of those, 133 are from zihg. non-slaveholding States, and 90. from what aie: calledl the slave States, giviug a majority in the aggregate to the former nf 48. In the electoral college .there are 168 votes belonging to the. noin slaveholding States, and 118 to the slave.. helding, giving a majority of 50 to the non slaveholding. - - .. We, Mr.'Presidetnt, ha've 'at present only one p~osition in the Governimett by which we may make arty resistanico. to thtis aggressive policy which has been declared againtst the South; or any other that the non-slaveholiling States may choose to take. And this equality in this body ia of the most transient character. Alrea dy Iowa is a State; but, owicg to-some domes tic cal-anity, is niot yet repres~inted in this ho. dy is of the most transient character.;. Already Iowa is a State; but, owing to some doestjp. calamity. is not yet represented .is A4is" -y~ When she appears here, there will h6e an addi tion of two Senatois to the representatives hers of the non slaveholding States. Already Vije4 consin has passed the initiaitory stage, and wilj be-here at next session. This wiu ad two more, making a clear majority of four in this body on the aide of the non-slavehniding States who will thas be enabled to a way every brancb of this Government at their will and pleasure. But, sir, if this aggressive policy he follqwed -if the determination of the non-slaveholdinf States is to he adhered to hereafter,'affd~b na to be entirelyluded6... &qm them-errtoi