CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



223 



efficient ? Does he want to make them more 

 gallant and efficient than the white soldiers? 



" Now, Mr. President, if there was any thing 

 settled when the Constitution was adopted, if 

 any thing has been settled since by judicial au- 

 thority, if any thing has been settled by politi- 

 cal parties in the enunciation of their principles 

 in their conventions from time to tune since 

 the existence of this institution became a sub- 

 ject of party politics, I suppose it to be this : 

 that the Congress of the United States in the 

 exercise of its legislative authority has no power 

 to abolish sl-avery in the States." 



The amendment was lost. Mr. Trumbull, of 

 Illinois, in opposition to the resolution, said : 



"Believing, however, that we have not the 

 power to pass such a law ; with the greatest de- 

 sire on my part to pass it if we had the power ; 

 holding myself bound by the Constitution which 

 I have sworn to support ; believing that there 

 can be no genuine liberty except liberty regu- 

 lated by law ; believing that we have no Gov- 

 ernment worth preserving unless we stand by 

 the Constitution as it is till we change it in a 

 constitutional mode, I must vote against the 

 passage of this joint resolution." 



The resolution was then adopted by the fol- 

 lowing vote : 



YEAS Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, 

 Conness, Dixpn, Farwell, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, 

 Harlan, Harris, Hicks, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Mor- 

 gan, Merrill, Pomeroy, Bamsey, Sherman, Sprague, 

 Sumner, Van Winkle, Wade, Willey, and Wilson 27. 



NATS Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, 

 Hendricks, Johnson, JSesmith, Powell, Salisbury, and 

 Trumbull 10. 



ABSENT Messrs. Collamer, Doolittle, Harding, 

 Henderson, Howard, Lane of Kansas, McDougall, 

 Richardson, Kiddle, Ten Eyck, Wilkinson, and 

 Wright 12. 



In the House, on February 22d, Mr. "Wilson, 

 of Iowa, reported back the Senate joint resolu- 

 tion to encourage enlistments, &c., &c. 



Mr. Harris, of Maryland, said: "I do not believe 

 that it is for the purpose of supplying soldiers 

 to the United States that measures such as this 

 are introduced. I am fully convinced that it is 

 for the purpose, and that only, of interfering 

 with and abolishing the institution called sla- 

 very in those States where it is legalized and 

 maintained, and which you are determined to 

 abolish by the most underhand and unconstitu- 

 tional means, even though the other great re- 

 served rights of the States may be involved in 

 its ruin. Where was the necessity of submitting 

 the question of slavery to the States for their 

 decision under the provision for amending the 

 Constitution, if Congress itself by a majority 

 of its two branches can constitutionally pass a 

 bill to effect the same object? 



" If you can abolish slavery so far as it re- 

 lates to the wives and children of negroes who 

 are or are to be your soldiers, why can you not 

 abolish the entire institution by act of Congress? 

 The very fact that you have submitted the ques- 

 tion to another tribunal, to. three-fourths of all 

 the States, under the clause of amendment in 



the Constitution, shows that you yourselves be- 

 lieve you are violating the provisions of that in- 

 strument and its true construction by adopting 

 this measure. You are fearful that the amend- 

 ment may not be adopted by the States, and 

 you are determined to break through all legal 

 and moral obligations in order to carry out 

 your determination to destroy this institution. 

 I deny your right to touch it in any way with 

 a view to its injury. Your resolution submit- 

 ting the question of abolishing slavery to the 

 States, which was passed a short time since, and 

 the pretended amendment, when it shall be 

 adopted by three-fourths of the States, cannot 

 be made a part of the Constitution which our 

 forefathers have handed down to us for the pro- 

 tection of our rights and liberties, and it will be 

 so decided by. any honest judiciary that will ever 

 occupy the bench of the Supreme Court or any 

 other court. The idea that a set of men (and 

 great men, such as the framers of our Constitu- 

 tion were) should allow the unrepealable privi- 

 lege to the States to carry on the foreign slave 

 trade itself for twenty years, and to import from 

 Africa an unlimited number of slaves into this 

 country, and at the same time intend that the 

 United States in any way should during the 

 same period or at any time have the constitu- 

 tional right and power to destroy slavery when 

 they are brought in, is too absurd for belief. It 

 certainly would not have been sensible or honest 

 for them to have given this inducement to their 

 citizens to press all sail so as to obtain all ad- 

 vantages of the slave trade in the year 1807, 

 and then in 1808 (at which time the privilege 

 of importing slaves ceased) to turn about and 

 abolish all the effect and advantages resultiag 

 from that trade. And if not in 1808, why should 

 they intend that the General Government, or 

 the States not interested in the institution, 

 should have that power at any time thereafter ? 

 Sir, they never did intend to claim for Congress 

 or for any number of States such a power ; on 

 the contrary, the institution was left by them 

 under the exclusive control of the individual 

 States in which it existed. 



" Sir, that slaves are property in this country 

 is a doctrine that has been recognized by every 

 authority, political and judicial, for centuries. 

 Your highest tribunals have so recognized it, 

 and have declared that it was the duty of Con-^ 

 gress to protect this property not to destroy " 

 it. This was the uniform judgment of your 

 courts up to and including the judgment and 

 opinion of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott 

 case, a case so thoroughly braced by law and 

 reason that I will defy all the ingenuity of the 

 chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and all 

 the legal aid he can bring from the ranks of his 

 party, to refute, and especially in regard to the 

 condition of the negro, whether slave or free. 



Mr. Wilson : " "We were formerly accustomed 

 to hear such arguments in this hall, but I am 

 happy to know that the time is rapidly passing 

 away when any man will rise before the Amer- 

 ican people in the Congress of the United States, 



