Suppose the laws of Mexico _prohibit_ slavery, would the simple repeal of the laws _establish_ it? I do not see by what reasoning it would do so. Is it probable, I would almost say possible, that slavery will be introduced by positive enactment? This would not only be local legislation, and on that account objectionable, even if it were possible, _as Congress is at present constituted_. It is said to be carried there by the Constitution. How can this be, if the Constitution does not extend there? A part cannot be extended without extending the whole. Congress is forbidden by the Constitution to legislate on certain subjects. This is true, but it is a limitation on its own powers, the effects of which are felt by the territories, as well as the States, but is no argument to prove, that the Constitution extends to the former as well as to the latter. I cannot see by what reasoning the Constitution is extended to them, and yet, I can readily see many curious, inconvenient, and unjust consequences arising from this view of the subject. It is impossible to avoid such consequences, when we attempt to reason from false premises. We have started wrong in acquiring territory, when such acquisition was not contemplated by the Constitution; and that error is the cause of other errors. I see no way of surmounting these difficulties, but by mutual forbearance, reciprocal respect for each others feelings and interests.[11] Footnote 11: