upon this. I will only listen, if gentlemen choose to go on, in order to discover by what ingenuity they can make out their case. It is a mere assumption to say that the constitution does not extend to the territories. Let the gentlemen prove their assumption. I hold the course of the whole of this debate to be triumphant to us. We are placed upon higher ground; we have a narrower question to defend; and it will be understood by the community that we are nonsuited only by a denial of the existence of the constitution in the territories.

[MR. WEBSTER. The honorable Senator from South Carolina alludes to some decision of the United States courts as affirming that the constitution of the United States does not extend to the territories, and he says that with regard to

MR. CALHOUN. I hope the gentleman will state my position exactly right. I said I was told a few days since that they had so decided, but that I was incredulous of the fact.

[MR. WEBSTER. I can remove the gentleman's incredulity very easily, for I can assure him that the same thing has been decided by the United States courts, over and over again, for the last thirty years.]

MR. CALHOUN. I would be glad to hear the gentleman mention a case in which such a decision was pronounced.

[Mr. Webster here said that, on a few moments consideration, he thought he could state many cases; and expressed great surprise that any one could seriously maintain the position that the constitution could extend to the territories. The existence of territorial governments the trial by jury within their jurisdiction-the settlement of land titles the independence of the territorial judiciary, &c., &c., all went to show the reverse. He referred to the English Government, as furnishing an illustration. There, where territory is acquired by conquest or otherwise, the authority of the constitution must be extended over it by act of Parliament. With us, in like cases, there is

no jus colonia; and the constitution must be extended by act of Congress when it assumes the character of a State.]

MR. CALHOUN. I shall be extremely brief in noticing the arguments of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, and I trust decisive. His first objection is, as I understand it, that I show no authority by which the constitution of the United States is extended to the territories. How does Congress get any power over the territories?

[MR. WEBSTER. It is granted in the constitution in so many words: the power to make laws for the government of the territories.]

MR. CALHOUN. Well, then, the proposition that the constitution does not extend to the territories is false to that extent. How else does Congress obtain the legislative power over the territories? And yet the honorable Senator says I assign no reason for it. I assigned the strongest reason. If the constitution does not extend there, you have no right to legislate or to do any act in reference to the territories.

Well, as to the next point. The honorable Senator states that he was surprised to hear from a strict constructionist the proposition, that the constitution extends itself to the territories. I certainly never contended that the constitution was of itself sufficient for the government of territories without the intervention of legislative enactments. It requires human agency every where; it cannot extend itself within the limits of any State, in the sense in which the gentleman speaks of it. It is, nevertheless, the supreme law, in obedience to which, and in conformity with which, all legislative enactments must be made. And the proposition that the constitution of the United States extends to the territories, as far as it is applicable to them, is so clear a proposition, that even the Senator from Massachusetts, with his profound talent, cannot disprove it. I will put the case of some of the negative provisions of the constitution. Con

gress can pass no law concerning religion, nor create titles of nobility. Can you grant titles of nobility in California? If not-if all the negative provisions extend to the territories, why not the positive? I do not think it necessary to dwell any longer on this point.

[Here Mr. Webster made some further remarks, to which Mr. Calhoun replied:-]

Mr. President, a few words. First, as to the judiciary. If Congress has decided the judiciary of the territories to be part of the judiciary under the United States, Congress has decided wrong. It may be that it is a part of the judiciary of the United States, though I do not think so.

[MR. WEBSTER (in his seat). Nor I.]

MR. CALHOUN. Again: the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts says that the territories are not a part of the United States. Are not a part of the United States! I had supposed that all the territories were a part of the United States. They are so called.

MR. CALHOUN, At all events, they belong to the United States.

[MR. WEBSTER (still in his seat). That is another thing. The colonies of England belong to England, but they are not a part of England.]

MR. CALHOUN. Whatever belongs to the United States, they have authority over; and England has authority over whatever belongs to her. We can have no authority over any thing that does not belong to the United States, I care not in what light it may be placed.

But, Sir, as to the other point raised by the Senator

internal improvements. The Senator says there is not a member on this side of the Chamber who has not voted to appropriate money out of the public treasury for internal improvements in the territories. I know that a very large portion of the gentlemen on this side have voted to appropriate money out of the public treasury for improvements in territories, upon the principle of ownership; that the land in the territories, in which improvements are made, has an increased value in proportion to the sums appropriated; and the appropriations have, in every case, been given in the form of alternate sections. But many gentlemen here have even utterly denied our right to make them under that form. But that question comes under another category altogether. It comes under the category, whether we have a right to appropriate funds out of the common treasury at all for internal improvements.

Sir, I repeat it, that the proposition that the constitution of the United States extends to the territories, is so plain a one, and its opposite-I say it with all respect-is so absurd a one, that the strongest intellect cannot maintain it. And I repeat, that the gentlemen acknowledge, by implication,— if not more than that, that the extension of the constitution of the United States to the territories would be a shield to the South upon the question in controversy between us and them. I hold it to be a most important concession. It narrows the ground of controversy between us. We then cannot be deprived of our equal participation in those territories without being deprived of the advantages and rights which the constitution gives us.

SPEECH

On the Slavery Question, delivered in the Senate, March 4th, 1850.

I HAVE, Senators, believed from the first that the agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of both the two great parties which divide the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without success. The agitation has been permitted to proceed, with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a point when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and the gravest question that can ever come under your consideration-How can the Union be preserved ?

To give a satisfactory answer to this mighty question, it is indispensable to have an accurate and thorough knowledge of the nature and the character of the cause by which the Union is endangered. Without such knowledge it is impossible to pronounce, with any certainty, by what measure it can be saved; just as it would be impossible for a physician to pronounce, in the case of some dangerous disease, with any certainty, by what remedy the patient could be saved, without similar knowledge of the nature and character of the cause which produced it. The first question, then, presented for consideration, in the investigation I propose to make, in order to obtain such knowledge, is-What is it that has endangered the Union ?

To this question there can be but one answer,-that the immediate cause is the almost universal discontent which pervades all the States composing the Southern section of