Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-02-29


But, sir, the 10Th article of the amend.
memts has as positively reserved To the
states The power In establish or prohibit
slavery, as if il had beea expressed in The
very words. Ii Is as effectually reserved
az any sp, ciiic political power. II, then,
Congress have right Ia demand "A relin
punishment OF this, they may equally de.
mand that of any other. Maine applies
for admission into the Union. You grant
her request, on condition that she will
rrhnqush a right 10 one Senator. She
demonstrates that This is a political power
Ia which each state is entitled by the
constitution. You answer, so was tina.
of Missouri. She complains that she
has n0i equal powe rs will, the other states:
the answer is, nor has Missouri. Let me
not be told that this is not a reservation,
bui an abolition OF power. Every DIM.
mutton OF power III a state is relatively an
acquisition TO the United States. M0reo-
yer, II you prohibit a state, you must en-
force the prohibition by legislation, judy
ment, and execution. But, before we
glance al the consequences To- which such
powers of imposing conditions may lead,
let us step forward and clear our way OF
The host of precedenis which are inteTpos.
ell To Obsiruct our passage.
When an exposition OF the constitution
is cOniemporaneous with It's origin, has
been made upon controversy of able
and interested adversarieS, and the de-
ciSI0n is the result of much wisdom and
elaboration, II is entitled 10 great respect.
But, as all reasoning from analogy is
suspicious, as every like is not the same,
and resemblances are often apparent but
not real, il becomes us 10 take care that
We do not make the constitution bead to
expositlons of doubtful analogy, or those
which result from Indifference, policy, or
ignorance.
Some Of the memorials OH your table
| have placed much reliance on the reser-
vaiions and conditions contained in tie
| act authorizing Louisiana 10 form a con.
stltuton aud state government, prepare
tory 10 her admission into the Uuion.-
The one, iritling as il is, which appears
10 interfere the most with ordinary state
legislation, is that which requires that her
| records shall be kept ia The language OF
those OF the United States. Ii will, how.
ever, be observed, that this was not I'M
posed as condition, and was 10 be pro
vlded Tor alter admission. In Louisiana,
a foreign language was spoken by ma
IOrlly OF the Inhabitants, which was the
case in no other sIaIe. BY the isl sec
| ton of the 4Ih article Of The constitutions,
| Congress have power TO prescribe The
manner IN which the records OF The states
shall be proved, and The effect OF such
proof. They might, as manner anu
| effect oil this proof, require that they
should be maze III the ordinary language.
| But, whatever may be their power IN ihis
| particular, this requisiilon on louisiana
was not CONDITION II VAS agreed 10,
| and, INSTEAD OF being a restriction pre-,
IhpH Ia L..
binding by consent.
Another class of restrictions, as they
| are dsnominaied, upon the same state,
Is The provision III iaV or OF certain perso-
nal rights, such as that OF habeas corpus,
trial by jury, aud freedom of religious
opinions. These were all within Tie power
| and duty OF Congress. All these rights
are reserved by the constitution 10 the
| people Of tile United States. The third
article of The treaty of cesSIOn secures TO
| the people OF the territory all The rights,
advantages aud inmunIties of citizens of
the United States. These, by the consli-
tuition, being ours, by The treaty they be-
came theirs. The people OF Louisiana
were party 10 this compact al least,
they became so OH their application tor
admission. They not only assented 10,
bull exacted these terms, and, instead oil
condition prescribed to them, il was
condition fulfilled by us. We will, there
fore, lay these out of The way.
The reservations which protect the
property belonging 10 The u. S. aith its
| appurteuances aud attributes, have been
seIzed on to justify an assumption OF so
vcrelgn power. That these cases should
have been relied on, 10 authorize this re
strlction, is OF all things most e1iraordi-
mary, and proves the extreme necessity
TO which gentlemen are reduced in their
search after power.
Should a sovereign cede jurisdiction,
could lie moi, by Tie terms Of the com
pact, save bis domain or property from
prejudice? When The trainers Of The
constitution authorized Congress 10 erect
new states, or Subordinate governments
III the territories, was il To- be suppose
that they could not preserve the rights of
property, as before They were aware
thai state might be formed within The
territory of another; that the property oil
the old state might fall within ihe juris'
dicilon OF the new and that MANY new
Jurisdictions would be formed from In,
territory Of the United States. Would i
not have been fair to presume that, il
creating or conserving 10 these, right e
preserve property from prejudice wa,
intended IN this power TO cede jurisdlc'
ZION
But the wise and provideni trainers o
that instrument were unwilling to leav,
rights of such importance TO inference
They made express provision on the sub
jeci, which, much TO my surprise, ha
been overlooked in any discussion whicl
las come 10 my knowledge ask lh
attention Of The committee ~ bile prove
E To- their entire satisfaction, that Tie powe
I over property is expressly reserved in th
1