The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-02-26

KIN bsfore The committee is a papable attempt 10
suo powers not conferred by the constitution on Con-
es and has not the miserable apology ma y Is cal
seJ 10 promote any OF the objects Tor winch the con-
tmon was framed, but on the contrary Is destructive
I ali In demonstrating this proposition, Purposeiy
brow out OF view the fact which has been 80 often men
nsd that this is attempt TO egslate for territory
hich is moi vet completely ours and which may never
eeome so--which, indeed never will become ours, II
onyess consents act in the spirit IN which TINS reso-
on is conceved for although thus fact most potent 10
low the wckedness of this proceeding yet will leave
hers 10 comment or il, and meet gentlemen upon the
Prounl they have selected. will argue the question
pon their assumption, that we have ACQUIRED OF
ar,ainy will acquire, territory in this war with Mex
co. Conceding this, ask where do you lind the au-
hority in the constitution to enact such poviso as ai
proposed by the gentleman from pennsylvania lMr
S4ths government is one of delegated powers. and all
owers not delegated in the constitution, by the very
m of that instrument, are reserved to the States and
ne people The Congress has more authority to eX-
rse power not delegated than il has one absolutely
rohbed These trite truths, which l regret the
lecessy of utering But when, in House nonlnally
lemocrtc, we hear from gentlemen protesting to be
democrats such doctrines that this government posses
res sovereignty, and that ii has mate powers IT IS time
for such OF have learned other doctrines to pro-
lain Them Although tnte to us they are new to others
Sir this government possesses no sovereignty: It is true
he States have delegated to it the exercise OF certain
oyeregn powers but the sovereignty itself IS IN the
people and is inalienabe. This government has no m
+e powers Is powers all derlyatye. These posi-
hons will not be disputed by any who understands
.the B Cs OF the republican faith. Bearing them in
mind ask in what clause of the constitution do you
nd the power TO iegtsate at all much less 10 adopt e
vocae legislation for the territories which we now hold
o may hereafter acquire Mark, do not ask Tor The
power propose forms Of government to the territories
but for the power TO lgsate for them DO not concede
me first; but it is not necessary Tor my argument
that should dispute it. know 1t has been exercised
IRON the foundation of the governments and some very
sound republicans have regarded it as fairly an incident
o the power OF acquiring territory. This is not salts
Factory to me- have great doubts about power to
establish for the territories even temporary governments
land these doubts strengthened by the proceeding OF the
convention which framed the constitution. On the 18th
M August Mr. Madison submitted in order to be referred
o the committee OF detail, among others, the following
bower as proper be added to those OF the general
Dature
ITO dispose Of the unappropriatcd lands OF the United
ITO institute temporary governments for the new States
arising therein"
The first branch of this proposition virtually adopt
he'd What became of the second 1t shared the tate OF
he proposition to confer upon Congress- the power to
grant charters OF Incorporation to establish university,
land to construct canals &c. The convention refused 10
confer the power contained in it, In the only territories
(which then possessed, temporary government al
ready existed and the convention was willing to leave 1t
10 the people Of the territory themselves to make such
alterations as might become necessary am very much
inclined to the opinion that the only Legitimate authority
(which the territorial governments possessed Is derived,
no, from the legislation OF Congress, but the adoption
lii We have performed the part of another Locke, and
proposed constitutions in which the people Of the Terri
have acquiesced but they have derived their sane
from the last proceeding, and not the rsf BE this,
however. it may, say the power OF Legislation is a
very different thing Legislation is action seli--const-
uions contain the forms of action And so far from
The practice of the government having sanctioned the
power of legislation over the territories sought to
exerted in the purer and better days OF the republic
/ was directly the other way
The clause OF the constitution from which the power
Congress egsate for the territories most usually de.
|ned by those who contend for it, Is the I'd clause OF the
Sd section of the 4th article, which is in these words
"The Congress shall have power dispose OF and make
all needul rules and regulations respecting the territory
other property belonging TO the United States"
Now, it is perfectly evident, from theanguage itself,
that the authority given is over the territory as property
The term ''territory" is here used in very common
sense, as synonymous with land and is concerning
this when it belongs to the United States about which
Congress may make all needful rules and regulations
pass such laws concerning the public lands situate the
territories as to may seem neediul. But surely this
clause confers power upon Congress to make rules
and regulations concerning persons in the territories, or
their private property. IT is only concerning "the terri
tory or other property belonging to the United States,
that we can make rules and regulations.
When the convention which framed the constitution
designed TO confer powers OF legislation, it used appro
pirate language to convey its meaning and language
very different from that of the clause under consideration
And here permit me to remark, before | refer to the
clause IN which this is done, that the constitution
remarkable for its literary execution for the great po
hllca wisdom embodied in 1t. There useless
pressons there tauology there is looseness of
expression The precise term, appropriate to convey
Inc idea designed to be conveyed, ia always used.
hose who have studied the debates of the convention,
must have been struck with the care and mnuteness
with which the exact meaning of every word and term
used was criticised There is no instance where when
different phraseology is used it is not designed convey
different meanings. When the convention designed TO
confer upon Congress the power of legislation they did
not ambiguous and doubtful expressions but such
are precisely appropriate TO express the idea This is
done in the section which the authority is conferred
upon Congress "To exercise exclusive legislation
IN all cases whatever over such district mot
exceeding ten miles square, as may by cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress- be-
come the seat OF government of the United States, and
exercise like authority all places purchased by
the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the
same shall be for the erection of FORTS magazines, ar
enas, dock yards, and other needful buildings" Here
are words used appropriate to confer the power of egs
aton; and you are not permitted to suppose that the
convention designed to confer the same power in anoth
clause when they different language not al all ap-
proprate Indeed in this clause the power of lerisa-
hon over distinct places conferred and If there was
any other over which ii was designed be conferred
here was the proper place to have done it and doubtless
the place where 1t would have been done For the con.
Venhon evInced, as was very natural, purpose OF
grouping all similar powers together
appears to me very clear that the second clause OF
the Sd section of the 4fh article confers upon Congress
no power Of legislation for the Territories held OF
hereafter to be acquired, except such may the
erniores as property II is not pretended to be derived
rom any other clause Those who talk about its being
an inherent power do not derive it from the constitution
but from other source than the constitution,
whence, am sure do not know, as never heard till
a'ely that this government possessed any powers moi
granted to IT In the constitutions either expressly by
implication. =,
The practice OF the government has not, as seems
be taken for granted in this debate been inconsistent
with these views, will proceed to show and mus
here beg the indulgence of the committee for some mi
huteness of detail.
First of the ordinance OF 1887, about which we