The North-Carolina standard., 1849-02-14

people Thenbow can Mr.. stspy have = the II ha1al g
- tn inter- st,cha barefaced calumny! In the ex
o of lie site he seems 10 have lost the use OF
~ -sason He sIanders without even taking the
nrecaution to devise credible cainmn he aiso
intimates that Mr. Shepard was rather afraid OF Mr
BADGER This charge is, if possible, more senseless
and ridiculous than the other. He will not be aole
to find simplston in North Carolina stupid enough
to believe it. Fear may, for ought that know nno
fit resting place in his own S DIs nnS a.
ed. and the proud. He also arraigns Mr.. Shepard
on the ground of personal dislike to MIR. Badger.
This is as amusing the other charges are contemP
-tibles Can it be possble,wlhlt De DeiIeFG9: tnd
Mr. Stanly thinks this crime deserving public re-
do not design, Mr. Editor, to enter into any dis
cussion of the Constitutional powers OF Gongress.
The public mind is sick and weary OF discussions OF
this vexed question. II cannot however, torbear 10
notice onesof two remarks of Mr.. Stanyon this snb-
iect He says Chief Justice Marshall and Judge
Johnson have declared that Congress mas the power
to exclude slavery from the territories presume
that he alludes to their opinions in the case OF the
American Insurance Company Us. Garter, quoted by
Mr. Badger in is'speech on the Compromise. Now
the opinion of the Court in this case cam by no art
or ingenuity, be distorted into such declaration.
The positions to which Mr.qBadger refers In has
speech are 06ter dictG--oplnlons incidentally
and collaerally expressed questions not In issue
in the cause But let give them all the authority
of clear unequivoca and direct judicial exposition.
They merely assert, what no one denles--that the
United States have the power OF acquiring teTrtor'
and of governing it, after it is acquired. NOW is
this an admission of the power OF congress TO eX-
clude slavery from the territories. By no means.
1t leaves the question to the rules to De oDserVeo
in the exercise of this power OF government. where
it stood first. 1t seems to me, that the territories
having been acquired by the sacrifice of the common
blood and treasure must be the common property OF
the several States. The Government is merely trus-
tee for the common benefit having certain clearly de-
fined and expressly delegated powers to be exercis-
tho frilSt 0SphI in
Constitution could have meant to give to GER
tain of the States advantages over others. 1t is Idle
to suppose that compact could have been formed on
such terms. ..t 81. n..--. -
Vattel saws in his rnastery treatise the Law of
Nations, book l, chap. 200 ttAll the members of
corporation have equal right to the use OF Its
common property. But, respecting the manneE OF
enjoying it, the body of the corporation may make
such regulations they think proper, provided that
these regulations be not inconsistent with that equal
ity which ought 10 be preserved In a communion OF
property. Thus, a corporation may determine the
use of common forest or pasture, either allowing
it all the members, according to their wants, or
alottng to each equal share but they have not
right exclude any one of the members, or to make
distinction TO his disadvantage, by assigning him
less share than that of the others"
Nothing be clearer than that this right of en-
joyng the common property on equal terms Is des-
troyed, if the slayeholder required as preliminary
condition of his going to the new territory to give
up his slave property to leave 1t behind him. he
is compelled tosubmit to condition not imposed on
his non-slaveholding neghbor. 1t Is pretended by
some that this power is conferred on Congress by that
clause in the Constitution which enables 1t " to make
rules and regulations concerning the territory and
other property belonging to the United States" But
let admit for the sake of the argument, that the
trainers of the Constitution meant by this clause to
confer powers of government although they no where
else convey such an important power under such
loose phraseology. Even then Congress would not
have unlimited absolute power the territories.
1t would be obliged to exercise the powers OF gov
ernmen in accordance with the spirit OF our instu-
tioDs and under the checks and restraints imposed
elsewhere in the Constitution. This principle, so
consistent with reason with justice, and with COM
mon sense, has received confirmation, if it needed
any, by the approval Of one of those great minds,
occasionally earth to instruct and enlighten
the children of men.
In delivering The opinion Of the Court in the case
of Fletcher rs Peck, Chief Justice Marshall says
' 1t may well be doubted whether the nature of So
ciety and of government does not prescribe some
limits to the Legislative power; and if any be pre-
scribed, where they to ne found, if the property
of individual fairly and honestly acquired, may be
seized without compensation.
"To the Legislature all legislative power is grant
ed but the question whether the act of transferring
the property Of individual to the public, be- in the
nature of the legislative power, is well worthy of
An illustration more opposite could hardly be de-
vised. The power of Congress-, contended for by
Mr.. Stanly, is neither more less than the power
to take property from the shareholders and give it to
One more remark, and have done. Mr.. Stanly
says the fifth Resolution is surrender of the whole
question. 1t says {" We do not intend to be under
stood conceding the power of Congress-, &C., but
willing, for the sake of peace, &C., that the
Missouri Compromise should be extended, &c. -
How this can be construed to admit the power of
Congress to exclude slavery, / cannot conceive. 1t
says do not intend to be understood conceding
this power to Congress. By what species of quibb-
ing and legerdemain, this be made to mean that
we do intend to be understood, cannot imagine.
We claim a joint property in the whole of the
public territory--can we not give up part of
our own property, if we feel SO disposed We do
not say that Congress has the right to exclude us
from ii but we say that for the sake of peace we
will submit to injustice to certain extent. Is not
this plain enough Is there distinction between
submitting to injustice and mistaking it for justice
There are several other passages in this bilious
production, Mr.. Editor, to which would like to call
your aention but fear that have already trespass-
ed too far on the space of your valuable columns.
VINDEX.
Correspondence of the New York Herald
New ORLEANS, La, Jan. %, 1s49.
We receive the strangest kind of telegraphic re-
ports in the columns of Northern papers, Some