The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-12-01

exercise OF that sovereign power cannot be rghuuly
attempted before The State constitution IS formed
There has been much discussion here and elsewhere,
respecting the relations which these Territories bear 10
the government OF the United States IN their present con-
diton The facts TO Oregon are not precisely the
those relating TO California and New Mexico.
The origin Of the title of this country Oregon, IS prior
discovery, confirmed by occupation and further admitted
and confirmed by conflicting claimants, IN the treaty by
which LOUISIANA was ceded 10 and In the recent con-
vention with Great Britain. Ii was when discovered,
uninhabited, except by few uncivzed Indians, with
out government or laws and nomadic In their character
Nearly two centuries ago. that eminent whig Judge, Lord
Chief Justice Holt, and the whole English Court OF
Kings Bench, laid down the true principle OF law TO be-
that on such discovery by English subject all the laws
in force in England became at in force in the new
country. Other authorities 10 the same effect; and
among them at least one express decision OF the Su
preme Court OF the United States tSee note c, appen-
dixl And here | may remark, that nowhere to
be found the true elementary principles OF national
law, the fundamental principles OF political right,
more persplcuously laid down than in the Judicial
opinions OF the eminent wing lawyers just before, du
ring, and just after the revolution OF 1858. Those
opinions, aud the writings of the patriots OF that era.
the of the arguments used by the patriots
of our revolution. Their exposition of the rights OF
free born Engishmen, under their great charter is the
Horeb from which, when stricken by our revolutionary
patrarchs flowed the waters of republican constitutional
freedom The operation of the rule cited may have been
necessarily suspended while the country was (under the
agreements between the United States and Great BRITAIN
in the joint occupation of the two governments; but the
moment acquired the exclusive possession, the rule
obtained in full force The common law, or principles of
this government, and the constitution and laws OF the
United States, far they Were applicable to the terri
tory, forthwith became operative and IN force therein
No systems, institutions, laws inconsistent to
or incompatible with them were tal,d, from the mo
ment our right and possession was admitted to be
erciusiue All the systems institutions and laws that
had grown up or had been adopted whilst the country
was In the joint occupation OF the United States and
Great Britain forthwith, by the force Of the rule ced
meltel and moulded into conformity with ours
The citizens Of the United States, owing allegiance to
the United States the only persons who could right
fully attempt the exercise OF any of the powers OF gov
ernmenta control, in anywise, the county, its
inhabitants and until expressly empowered by the legis
latve authority of Congress, they could only exercise
such powers by consent of the community, and to the
extent only that The law OF se.preservaon and Of M
exercise the attributes OF sovereignty as an indie
pendent people, whilst they admitted their allegiance to
the government of the United States Exclusion of
the institution of domestic servude the exercise
of such sovereign authority Several other powers as
sumed by the provisional government OF Oregon" in the
establishment OF their Organic law OF iSi5".for exam
pe that of making and treaties establishing and regu
atng currency dlsposlng OF the public domain, &care
like sovereign powers Hence these provisions OF that
"oganc law being also inconsstentto and Incompatible
with the law principles OF the re eral govern
men and of the constitution OF the United States and the
institutions recognised by it, and the rights of the citizens
of the States under them, are Uoid
With respect to California and New Mexico, it is en-
trely nmateral whether regard them as conquered
countries as acquired by cession udef the treaty with
Mexico. The same rule governs both cases. In fact,
except by annthaon of the government of country,
conquest OF 1t can be consummaled without cesson,
by the possedetis which operates cession That
rule is, that upon the consumption OF the conquest or
cesslon the political relations between the country SO &C
quired and its former government are dissolved and ex
ingushed The allegiance OF us Inhabitants Is trans
eEred to their new government and is qualified in its
character, TO conformity with the laws and institutions OF
the latter, to harmonic with the principles of such
new government in all respects All the POLITICAL laws
whether mandatory or prohibory-a the political in
suons OF such country in anywise inconsistent to- or
AZ that
do not assimilate to them are upon the ccnsumHailUn
OF such cession by it, &c u termn annulled Such Is
the law as laid down in the approved authorities, and
by your Supreme Court, in LIST Peters. (See note
c, appendix) No such political law, whether mandatory
prohbitory such political institution could con-
nue if so inconsistent or incompatible. any more than
the people OF such country could enact establish them
after the change of government with the same inconsis
encies and ncompabilites They are, by force of the
cession made TO conform entirely TO the laws, nsu
lions, and policy of the government For instance
will be pretended that the conquest by the United
States cesson 10 it of country governed by king
with his nobility, his princes, dukes, ears, barons
and knights, each with franchises and privileges APP
puTtenant TO his rank and e that these political
atoms could be recognised by after the cession when
our institutions and federal constitution repudate
them Again, the sanction OF political authority and of
law given in countries to the right of clerical SUI
perors, to compel by coercve means, conformity in mat
OF sso hf gGt also RE repnaea IN our
OF country in which it existed at the time of
sion' None will, presume, 50 contend Hence hold
that any prohlbtory law with respect to the institution
OF domestic servudea political institution recognised
by the federal constution-though such law may have
been IN force in California and New Mexico when ceded
to the United States annuled by the cession Such
law originating in foreign political source, and not having
the express sanction OF any competent constitutional pow
er in this government, and being inconsistent with poti
cal institutions in the States recognised by the federal
constitution and incompatible with the equal rights of
citizens of those States with respect to these Territories
under the constitution, would become imperative and
null and void upon the contamination OF the cession. 1t
needs no affirmative legislation the part Of the United
with the extinction of the political authority from
whence II derived. The instant of the cession, the
political principles of this government-of its institutions
the principles of the federal constitution and all the
laws OF the United States, attach far they may TO
the new country and control it Territory of the
United States free of all restrictions not imposed
recognised by competent authority of this government
Ii is true, by the laws OF nations the local and municipal
regulations those regulating the title to property, and the
municipal Offices IN a conquered ceded country,
government to which the counry is coded This last rule
before stated does not extend to political institutions
or laws conflicting with those of the government and
does not embrace the laws of local and municipal
character in coded country, totally reconcabe to- and
incompatible with, the principles and institutions of the
new government OF necessity they must conform the
common law OF such government The decisions of
the Supreme Court of the United States as reported in
LIST and eth Peterss Reports, this doctrine to the
full extent that have stated it. GSee note c. ap
pendix But il has been argued that there is no princ
pie OF the government of the United States recognising
the institution OF domestic servtude political nsu-
ton OF the federal government. 1t is said while
some OF the States recognise African slavery, do
not and that the character OF the scrvude recognised
different States is dssimlar, and that the Of
ITS recognition by the federal government only to the
extent and IN the degree that 1t has been may be-
recognised by the sovereign authority of each State