of Federal . control-of tiavery in the "Fed eral Tcirito ies. :thit there is much 'Yea son to believe:that their undersiandinfi upon that question vrould not have-ap reareirdifferent from Wet of their tvien ty-tfirae compeers, had it been manifest ed at all. .- -Foy the purpose of adhering. rigidly.. to file teat, T have, purpOely olitted.what ever onderstanding tray have been-runni felted by iiny.person, however distinguiSh ed, other than the thirtylnine fathers who, fratfied.the eriginal.Constiti,ion ; and, fur . - - the same reason, I have also omitted what-'. ever understanding May have'bten man- - ife:ted . by any of the " thirty-rine" even; • on any other plfaSe of the ueral question of slavery. If ice look into their acts and--declarations on those other, .-pliases, ,as the foreign slave trade,, and the morality and policy of slavery - ,geuer;! :ally. it Would ..appear to us that on the direa question. of Federal_ control- o( -slaveryin Federal Territories, - the sixteen,'. if they had acted at all, would prObably -hive acted just as the :twenty-three did. , l , :Among thht sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery:, then of those Franklin, [Cheers," Al -exanderAamilnin, and,Guv.ernor Morris there was not, one now known to'have been otherwise, unless it 'may be John Mitledge, of SoutliCarolini... [Ap -plau.se:] •The snit, of.the whole is, that/ of our "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Constittition, twenty-one—a clear .tuajority'of: the whole—certainly understood that nu proper division of lo cal 'from - Federal duilwity, nor ariY-ria rt of the Ctinstitiltion, forbade the Federal 'Government to Contr.)l . slavery in the Federal Territories.. while all the rest :probably had the same understanding.- - 'Such, unquestionably, was the under standing of our fathers who fruited the -ortginacConstitution ; and the text ;if firms that they understood the. question. 'better thait we. • [Laughter and cheers.] But,- so far, I have been considering: the understanding of the question maul- Tested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a, mode was . provided: for :'itnending it; and, as I have already :stated, - the present frame of Government under which we live consists of that or- i and twelve anic.indatory a'tieies framed and adopted since. Those who: now insist that Federal.control of slavery i -in Federal Territories violates the Con-, ftuution, point us to the provisions: -Which they suppose it thus violates; and: as I understand, they all fix upon pro -visions in these innendtitory articles, and trot in the . original instrument. The S upreme: Court in the Deed Scott case,: plant themselves upon the fifth amend ment, which':provides that "no person l• -shall he deprived of property without &ei process of; law;" while Senator Douglas and his peculiar. adherents plant them-: selves UnZat the tenth amendment provid ing that . "the:powers not granted by the, . - Ctnstitution are resers'ed to the States: re-pectively, and to the people." - Now-, it so_ happens that the.sa amendments: were framed by the first Congress which . : sat under the Constitutfon—the identical , Congress which sat under the Constitu-: ti in—the identical Congress which passed! the act already mentioned, enforcing the! prohibition of slavery in the North-west-i Territory. [Applause ] Not only Vas it the same : Congress, but they were: 'the identical, same. individual men who,: at the•sslob session, _at the' same time within the -scSdon, bad-unde.r considers-1 lion, and: in progress toward maturity. these constitutional amendments and! this act prohibiting slavery in all the ter- 1 ri tory •the nation :then owned. The con stitutional amendments were introduced before and.passed after the - act of enforc ing the ordinance of 1757.; so that dur iag-the-whole pendency of the aet to en-, forcing the ordinance, the constitutional amendments Were also pending. :That Congress; consisting in all of seventy-six members, including sixteen of the fri.-1 nmrs of the original Constitution, -as:bo fore-stated.. were .pre-eminently our is- I thers-who framed that part of the Gov eminent under which we live, which is I now claimed as i'orbiddino: the Federal G'overnmei3t: to control slavery in the Federal . Territories. Is it not a little - presumptuous in any one at this:day io adirut that the two things which dila Congress deliberately framed and carried to maturity at the same time are aboso lutely inconsistent with each other? And dots riot such affirmation become impu dently absurd-when coupled with the oth er affirmation from the same mouth, that . those who did the two things alleged to be inconsistent tinderstaoil wiiether they really :were inconsistent-better than we— •b:itter than he who affirms that they are: inconsistent ?- [Appltuse and great tiler rimentj - , It is surely safe to assume that the lithirty4tine" framers of the original Constitution. and the seventy-six mem bers of the Congress • which . framed the amendments thereto:- taken altogether, as certainly inclutlejbose who may he-fair ly Calle d. ."our fathers who framed the .Government.under Which we live." 'And so assuming; I defy any . man to show that'any: one of theut ever in his whole life declared-that, in :his understanding. any iiroper division of local from • Federal authority. - or , any part of the Cenztitution, forbade tile Federal Goveron.ent to con trol as to lila very in the Federal - - Territo. ries/ pod -applause.] 1 r_ go- a step further.•' .Idefy any' one to show that any living tuttrin the *hole world ever did prior to the — beginning of the present century, (arnl - Vaught almost say prior z