Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1820-05-09

kDe Onlteu states, ana L lnlnh OonbrOoo
would consider it violation ofthat COM
pact for either of those states to under
take to admit slavery hereafter.
In the case of Stuart against Laird,
q Cranch, p. 299,) decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States in
1908, this doctrine is laid down:
Another reason for reversal is, that
the Judges of the Supreme Court have
no right to sit as Circuit Judges, not be-
ing appointed as such, or, in other
words, that they oushs have distinct
commissions for that purpose. To this
objection, which is of recent date, it is
sufficient to observe, that practice and
'acquiescence under it for period Of
several years, commencing with the
organization of the Judicial system, at
fords an irresistible answer, and has in
deed, fixed the construction. 1t is a
contemporary Interpretation of the most
forcible nature. This practical con-
struction is too strong and obstinate to be
shaken, or controlled. OF course the
question is at rest and ought not now to
be disturbed" And, in the case of the
United States Bank, so ably argued,
and then SO ably decided by the same
Court during the last winter (See
Wheaton, 4oo,) the Court recognizes
the same doctrine, contending however,
without the aid of precedent, that the
charter is the offspring of Legitimate
legislation on the part of Congress.
H., Nf,I,1-. Il, L. 90
the Senate, in 1916, communicating his
disapprobation of the bill which had
passed both houses of Congress incor-
porating national bank, makes these
observations =" Waving the question
of the constitutional authority of the
legislature, to establish an incorporated
bank, as being precluded, in my judg-
ment, by repeated recognitions, under
varied circum stances, of the validity OF
such an institution, in acts of the legis-
lative, executive and judicial branches
OF the governm ent, accompanied by in
dications in different modes of concur
renee Of the general will of the nation,
SC.
Thus, Mr.. Chairman, it will be seen,
that, upon the principles established by
the Supreme Court, recognized in two
cases which have cited, and upon
principle recognized also by President
Madison, this question should now be
considered as in some degree settled, if
not precluded. The gentleman from
Kentucky, {Mr. Harding however, will
not admit that precedent ought to have
any weight in settling the principles Of
the constitution. What not a prece- |
dent made by some of the very trainers
of that constitutions A precedent also
produced by a concurrent Legislative
exposition Sir, Gen. Washington and
Mr. Madison, who have both given their
appreciation to this construction, were
members of that convention. And, yet,
shall it be said their construction should
have no weight I? The gentleman, how
ever, claims, perceive, the benefit of
precedent, when it operates in his favor
He tells you that Missouri is entitled to
admission from her numbers, although
the constitution says nothing about num-
bers. Yet, he says, that other states
have been admitted with less than sixty
thousand, which forms a precedent by
which Congress ought to be governed,
in admitting Missouri. Sir, l will be
candid. will admit the force of his
PRECEDENT think Missouri entitled to
admission, but, in recognizing her right
upon precedent, certainly must claim
the benefit of my own, and ask the
gentleman, with the same frankncss, to
do the like.
Having shown, Mr.. Chairman, as
think l have, that Congress have the
power to prohibit the migration of
slaves to Missouri, and, from the prac-
tice Of the government, that conditions
not inconsistent with the federal rights 4
Of the state may be rendered as the
terms Of admission, will now proceed
to examine that clause of the cons;itu-
ton which says, "New states may be
admitted by the Congress into this
Union" From the very language of
this provision, there would seem to be
an implied existence of discretion in
Congress to admit or reject. In the
business of this construction, however,
gentlemen generally concur on both
sides. But it is contended by the
gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Har-
ding as we'll as gentleman from Vir-
ginia, Mr.. Smyth,) that Congress has
no other power but simply to reject or
admit; that a state is definite term,
as used in the constitution, and implies
in its definition negation of the power Of
Congress to interfere further with it than