the existence of slavery in this district, the field exclusively of our common legislation. I regret that, as yet, I see little reason to hope that a majority in favor of emancipation exists here. The legislature of New York — from whom, with great deference, I dissent — seems willing to accept now the extinction of the slave-trade, and waive emancipation But we shall assume the whole responsibility, if we stipulate not to exercise the power hereafter when a majority shall be obtained. Nor will the plea with which you would furnish us be of any avail. If I could understand so mysterious a paradox myself, I never should be able to explain, to the apprehension of the people whom I represent, how it was that an absolute and express power to legislate in all cases over the District of Columbia, was embarrassed and defeated by an implied condition not to legislate for the abolition of slavery in this district. Sir, I shall vote for that measure, and am willing to appropriate any means necessary to carry it into execution. And, if I shall be asked what I did to embellish the capital of my country, I will point to her freedmen, and say, these are the monuments of my munificence!
I come now to notice the suggested compromise of the boundary between Texas and New Mexico. This is a judicial question in its nature, or at least a question of legal right and title. If it is to be compromised at all, it is due to the two parties, and to national dignity as well as to justice, that it be kept separate from compromises proceeding on the ground of expediency, and be settled by itself alone.
I take this occasion to say, that while I do not intend to discuss the questions alluded to in this connection by the honorable and distinguished senator from Massachusetts, I am not able to agree with him in regard to the alleged obligation of congress to admit four new slave states, to be formed in the state of Texas. There are several questions arising out of that subject, upon which I am not prepared to decide now, and which I desire to reserve for future consideration. One of these is, whether the article of annexation does really deprive congress of the right to exercise its choice in regard to the sub-division of Texas into four additional states. It seems to me by no means so plain a question as the senator from Massachusetts assumed, and that it must be left to remain an open question, as it is a great question, whether congress is not a party whose future consent is necessary to the formation of new states out of Texas.
Mr. Webster. Supposing congress to have the authority to fix the number and time of election, and apportionment of representatives, &c., the question is, whether, if new states are formed out of Texas, to come into this union, there is not a solemn pledge by law that they have a right to come in as slave states?
Mr. Seward. When the states are once formed, they have the right to come in as free or slave states, according to their own choice; but what I insist is, that they cannot be formed at all without the consent of congress, to be hereafter given, which consent congress is not obliged to give. But I pass that question for the present, and proceed to say that I am not prepared to admit
