The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1848-01-15

festoes yet put forth by any Of our public men
On the question Of slavery, IL is especially lame,
and so we think it will be esteemed North and
South, Notwithstanding the high compliment
which the intelligent democracy Of Ohio has just
paid him.
Gen. CAss was in favor of the Wilmot Pro-
viso-then he thought the time selected to aP-
ply 1t wrong--and now he abandons il altogeth-
er, and holds that Congress has no right TO pro-
hibit slnvery in the territories of the Union
The Nr0 York BUsnirg Post, leading demo-
cratic journal, remarks upon these changes as
follows
There is a story Of Vermonter who, being
sued at law for damages In breaking an iron
kettle which he had borrowed, pleaded in court,
first, that he never had the kette secondly, that
Il was broken when he borrowed il; and thirdly,
that IL was whole when he returned il.
Gen. Gass was in 1876 for the Wilmot Pro-
yiso-he never had the kettle-in l647 the VIII
mot Proviso was right in principle, but wrong
| In the time of its application-the kettle was
broken when he borrowed it-and now, in lS4S,
the Wimot ProvisO is unconstitutional and un-
necessssry--the kettle was whole when he re-
turned IL. So il is with all the prematurists-
warm friends yesg since Of the principle Of ex
GLIDING slayery-they have come at last to the
convenient conclusion, when the pretext of pre-
maturity will serve them no longer, that the
Constitution gives Congress no authority to pro-
vide for its prohibition.
The General assigns reason for his change
OfOpinioR. We regret this. We should really
thus slip from one extreme to the other, and, at
last settle down on principle which the widest
Pro-slavery ultra would consider soundly ortho-
dOx. Bat all he says, on this point, is contain
ed in the following paragraph
| am strongly impressed with the opinion that
great change has deem going on in the public
mind upon this subject, (ihe Wimot Proyiso
and slavery ia sss otcR as well as others; and
that doubts arc resolving themselves into con-
| victions, that the principe 1t involves should be
kept out Of the national legislature, and left to
| the people Of the cOnfederacy in their respective
local governments.
Admitted, SC far us regards the States. Ken
lucky has exclusive legal control over slavery,
and no other power has the right TO interfere
with it, within her borders. But how Is it with
regard to territories7 They have no Sovereign
ty. Their local government, in fact, is Con-
gress. That body has whatever "inchoate'' SOW
ereignty belongs to the people that inhabits them.
But Mr.. CAss disposes of this objection thus:
In various respects the Territories differ from
the States. Some of their rights are inchoate,
and they do not possess the peculiar attributes
Of sovereignty. Their relation 10 the general
government is very imperfectly defined by the
constitution; and il will be found, upon exaIni-
nation, that in that instrument the only grant
of power concerning them is conveyed in the
phrase.
Congress shall have the power to dispose of
and make all needful rules and regulations, re-
specting the territory and other property belong
ing TO the United States"
Certainly this phraseology is very loose, if it
were designed TO include in the grant the whole
power Of legislation over persons, as well as
things. The expression, the "territory and
other property" fairly construed, relates to the
public lands, All such, TO arsenals, dock-yards,
forts, ships, and all the various kinds Of proper
ty, which the United States may and must pos
sess.
But surely the simple authority TO dispose Of
and regulate these, Goes not extend 10 the un-
limited power Of legislation; TO the passage Of
all Iatcs, in the most general acceptation Of the
word; which by the bye, is carefully excluded
| from the sentence. And, indeed, II this were
1 y
ion Of the constitution, which grants to Con-
gross the power to legislate, with the consent Of
the States, respectively, overall places purchased
| fer the " erection of forts, magazines, arsenals,
doek-yards, &c" These being the property"
of the United States, If the power to make
" needful rule, and regulations concerning"
them includes me general power Of legislation,
then the grant of authority 10 regulate the ter
ritory and oths property of the United States"
l.. II II :.
operation, and its exercise needed no auxiliary
provision. Il, on the other hand, II does not
include suchpower of legislation over the "oth-
er property"of the United States, then IL does
| not include over their "ferritory - for the
same terms which grant the one, grant the 9TH
er. "Tsrribry" is here classed with property,
and treated al such; and the object was evident
ly TO enable the general government, as prop
erty holder--rhich, from necessity, must be-
to manage, preserve, and "dispese Of" such
| property as itmight possess, and which author
ity is essential almost to its being. But the lives
and persons d our citizens, with the vast varie-
| ty of objects connected with them, cannot be
controlled by an authority, which Is merely
| called into existence for tho purpose Of making
rules and regulations for the disposition and
management efpropsrty.
Well, If this construction be right, where are
we Every move made by our Government,
since territories were established, has been gross
ly unconstitutional. And not only that; but
the Presidenthas no right whatever to appoint
Governors thereof; and Congress canno. by act
give them legislatures. The ordinance of 1887 is
void. Every step taken on the part, or proposed
to be taken in the future, for Oregon, Minnesota
&C., is maniiestly unconstitutional. And yet
this construction Of Mr. Cass, gives the Govern
n,ent absolute power over territories /; for the
soil Is here here to do with All she pIeases to
sell or exchange to barter for gold or power.
" This is essential almost" says he, " to the be-
ing ola territory" And yet, having this pow
er--ths highest attribute Of sovereignty--the
government has not the right to legislate for
such territory! The contradiction here is pal.
pable. More, il is absurd.
The General sums up his views as follows:
Briefly, then, / am opposed TO the exercise of
any jurisdiction by Congress over this matter;
and ] am in favor of leaving 10 the people of
any territory, which may be hereafter acquired,
the right TO regulate IL for themselves under the
general principles of the Constitution Be-
/ cause
l. do not see in the Constitution any grant
Of the requisite power TO Congress; and / am
not disposed TO extend doubtful precedent be-
yond its nes,essity-the establishment of terri
torial governments when notwithstanding TO
the inhabitants all the rights compatible with the
relations they bear to the confederation.
| 2. Because, believe this measure, If adopt
ed, would weaken, IL not impair, the union Of
the States; end would sow the seeds Of future
/ ii.