The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-05-21


whch reclted that IN order that the ordinance of 1857
may continue to have full effect il is requisite &c
hir GAlLE. Is that an act of Congress
MI MURPHY replied that il was This ordinance
mem was compact, an engagement contract between
ne people OF the United States in their collective capa-
city, and the people who should nhabit this new terri
tory and this express acknow edgment OF ih compact
by Congress alter the adoption of the new constitutions
as wen as me recognition OF il by the constitution made
binding, ratiied 1t, and cured it of any unconsu-
uonalty under the confederation which it mig pre-
viesy have been obnoxious The clause of the con-
debts contracted and entered into before he
adoption of this constitution shall be as valid against the
United States under this constitution under the CON
federation.
gentleman near him said this had reference to COM
pact; but this ordinance is in terms declared to be COM
pact agreement, engagement entered into on the
vision TO raty all engagements" II il no COM
pact no agreement between the United States and the
OF s as as ~as ne a nsR 20 TOOK into
the debate on the Missouri compfomise and we had the
authority of distinguished southern gentleman, the
father of the honorable gentleman from Maryland, lthe
Hon Louis Mclane) confirming the view which ne had
taken That distinguished gentleman said, if it was
compact, it confirmed by the constitution These
are his words: ~
"This ordinance was considered doubtful until the aop-
sixth article Of which was supposed to be confirmed
But this conformation shows it to be in the of COM
by all the parties connected with itnot incorporated In
aS % by
clause, providing for the validity Of contracts 1t was
propose affect the rights ofpersons residing there twas
TO operate as contract upon those who should subse-
der this ordinances they voluntarily became parties TO iii
and such only settled there were willing to live without
slaves and subject TO the terms OF the compact"
Mr.. billiard interposed with the remark that
Congress did recognise the constitutional authority OF
the ordinance Of 1887 They simply authorized the peo
pie of the territory to organize and maintain govern
ment but none OF the provisions OF the act related to
slavery
Mr. MURPHY said his argument was that the ordi-
nance of 1857 was confirmed by the constitution. He
had alluded 10 the law to show that the first Congress
thereafter cognizant its members must have been OF
the views of the trainers of the constitution thought the
constitution had confirmed the ordinance and they passed
this law for the purpose of giving it more full effect That
was the x s in y, which ; he had used t. 70
the people OF the Territory were consulted IN TINS com
pact"
Mr. MURPHY replied in the negatives they were not
there But this contract binding essentially upon
the people of the United States because it was volunta-
y entered into by them inviting settlers to 20 there. 1t
against the United States The gentleman from Virginia
had addressed the House the argument that in none OF
the laws establishing Territorial governments had this m
hbon of slavery been contained except in the case OF
Wisconsin, and in that case he had undertaken to explain
it away Now, if his (Mr. Ms view was correct, that
this compact binding the United States there was
no necessity OF introducing the law OF the lands
and. more the supreme law as it was ratified and
confirmed by the constitution
possesses the power legislate for Territories acquired
since the adoption of the constitution MS an incident to
the power acquire nseessitate; strained only by
the conditions OF the cessio and nv the prohibitions and
limitations of the constitution. This covered the Terri
tory which really the subject OF their discussion AS
question raised in this House in the country 1t
in view of the territory to be acquired in Mex
icO comprising New Mexico and California that thus
question assumed its great importance and was in re-
gard to that territory that he deemed this his proposition
to apply Now, he held that the constitution did not
contemplate the acquisition OF territory He found
no power expressed in the constitution to acquire new
territory He admitted that where express power was
granted carried with all the powers necessary to give
it full force and effect. But there no express power
conferred by the constitution to acquire teritoy it there
were he called the gentleman from Virginia or any
| other gentleman to point it out
Mr.. BAYLY Tin his seaD was understood to refer the
gentleman TO the power to declare
Mr.. MURPHY. Is that power to acquire terrtory'
Mr. MURPHY inquired of the gentleman if it was not
incidental to that power and also to the treaty power!
was mere Incident How did we acquire territory! ~
the constitution authorizing the acquisition OF territory
Mr.. BA laLal;,, None,
United States acquired the territory composing the States
of Alabama and Mississpp' And how the territory OF
Oregon' They acquired the territory of Alabama and
of Oregon by The discovery of Gray Mr. Calhoun and
Mr. Buchanan, he had already observed had, as Sec
Of % h h go oe5 IT, s ae
Spain had rights there she had never followed up her
discovery by settlement twas contended at the time
by the discovery of Gray and subsequent colonz alton
i and settlement.
Now we had the power to acquire territory, not by an
original, express grant in the constitution, but fret as IN
cdena to the expressed powers and also as an modem
to sovereignty He told the gentleman from Virginia ne
did deny the right to acquire errItory but ne SAID
the right by which we acquired Alabama, Mississippi
and Oregon was an incident of nationality.
| Mr. McLANE Uhe floor being yielded) explained that
in the speech referred to by the gentleman from New
York lMr. MURPHY,] Mr.. McLane OF Delaware, denied
that the ordinance of 1857 gave Congress any power
prohibit slavery in the northwestern territory Mr. Nc
Lane arguei that this ordinance was good for nothing
except so far it was supposed by some to be com
pact and as compact would have acted directly the
people going into said territory But Mr.. McLane him
self did admit to be compact. ratified by competent
parties to AXE a contract
Mr.. MURPHY stated that he had taken the position
that the ordinance compact and That thaf c0mpac
was ratified and confirmed by the constitution he had
referred the ordinance of 1877 to show that was
compact and had then gone TO say that according 70
the argument of Mr. McLane, OF Delaware, II a com
pact il was ratified and confirmed by the constitution
Mr. Mel. said il was confirmed as compact, NOT as
law.
pact, then now.
Mr. MURPHY said it was declared by the ordinance
ITSELF to be compact but he going before this
Interruption consider the question relative to the Ter
r,ory which the subject Of their discussion,
He had asserted that the provisions OF the ordinance oil
1877 did not apply that Terrtory he hadgone on fur
Their to say that there certain national powers
powers incident this government sovereign, in
common with all other civilized nations (which we
could exercise, and that among them was the right to
acquire terrtory; and if we had not those powers we