The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1848-07-26

gainst it. Nor can il be found in the fact
that the South holds property in slaves
That, too, fairly considered, instead of afford.
ing any authority for the power furnishes a
strong presumption against it. Slavery ex-
isted in the South when the constitution was
framed, fully to the extent in proportion to
their population as it does at this time. 1t is
the only property recognized by 1t; the only
one that entered into its formation as po-
litical element. both in the adjustment ofthe
relative weight the States in the govern
ment, and the apportionmcnt ofdrect taxes;
and the only one that is put under the ex-
press guarantee''ofthe constitution. 1t is well
known to all conversant with the history of
the formation and adoption of the constltu
,ion, tina, the South was very jealous in ref
ence to this property; both to It's formation
and adoption, and that it would not have as
sented to either. had the convention refused
to allow TO its due weight in the government,
or To place it under the guarantee of the
constitution. Nor can il be found in the
way that the territories have been acquired.
will moi go into particulars in this respect at
thisstage ofthe discussion. Suffice ii IS to say
The whole was acquired, either by purchase
out of the common funds of all the States,
the South as we'll as the North, or by arms
and mutual sacrifice Of men and money
which ins.ead of giving any countenance in
favor of The power claimed by the North,
on every principle of right and justice, fur
nishes strong additional presumption against
u.
But. lfit cannot be found in either, if it ex-
isis al all, the power must be looked for in
the constitutional compact which binds these
States together in federal Union and lnow
ask, can it be found there? Does that instru-
ment contain any provision which gives the
North the power 10 exclude the South from
free admission into the territories of the
United States with its peculiar property, and
to monopolize them for its own exclusive
use? Ifit IN fact contains such power, ex-
pressed or implied. It must be found in
specific grant, or be inferred by irresistible
deduction from snme clear and acknowI-
edged power. Nothing short of the one or
the other can overcome the strong presump-
tion against il.
Tha, there is no such specific grant may
be inferred beyond doubt, from the fact that
no one has ever attempted TO designate it.
Instead Of that, it h $ been assumed-taken
fnr granted without particle of proof
that Congress has the absolute right to 60
vern the territories Now | concede, If it
does in reality possess such power, they may
exclude from the territories who o, what
thew please, and admit into them who or
what they please; and of course may exer.
else the power claimed by the North to cx-
cludc the South from them. But again re-
peat, where IS this absolute power TO be
fnundl All admit that there is no such specific
grant of power. If, then, it exists at all, it
must be inferred from some such power. ]
ask where is at 10 be found?
The Senator from New York behind me,
TMr. Dix, ! points 10 The clause in the consli.
tuition. which provides that congress shall
have the power to dispose of and make all
necdful rules and regulations respecting The
territory and other property belonging to
the United States" Now | undertake to
affirm and maintain beyond the possibility
of doubt, ,ha, So far from cnnlerrng abso.
lutte power to govern the territories, it con-
fcrs no governmental power whatever; no,
not particle. 1t refers exclusively to ter
ri.ory, regarded simply as public lands. Eve
nv word relates to it IN that character, and is
wholly inappIicablc TO it considered in any
other character but as property. Take the
expression ID spose of" with which ii begins.
II is easily understood what it means when
applied to lands; and is the proper and nau.
raj expression regarding the territory IN that
character, when the object is to confer the
right to sell or make other disposition Of it.
But who ever heard the expression applied
to government And what possible mean.
ing can it have when 50 appIiedl Take the
next expression, "to make all ncedful rules
and regulations" These regarded separate.
Iy mig int indeeI, be applicable to govern
menl in lnose sense; but they are never so
applied in the constitution. In every case
where they are used IN it, they refer to pro-
perry, to things, or some process, such as the
rules of court, or of the House of Congress
for the government Of their proceedings, but
never to government, which always implies
persons to be governed. But if there should
be any doubt in this case, the words imme-
disleIy following, which restrict them to
making "rules and regulations respecting the
territory and other property of the United
States" must effcctuaIy expell it. They
restric, their meaning beyond the possibility
Of donbt to territory regarded as property.
But if it were possible for doubt still to ex-
ist another and conclusive argument still re-
mains to show that the trainers Of the con.
| s,itution did not intend to confer by this
clause governmental howers. lrefer to the
clause ir the constitution which delegates
..al..s;..o lo1ziriat 10 lyou