The southern press., 1850-09-03

ldnub ccueu 10 tnem Dy TIE late treaty pcuCc.
In support of the original proposition, MIR.
BUTLER, said: elf new States were 10 be erected
without the consent of the dismembered States,
nothing but confusion would ensue. Whenever
taxes should press upon the people, demagogues
would set up schemes of new States" .,
Doctor JOHNSON was "afraid that as the clause
stood, Vermont would be subjected TO New York
contrary to the faith Of Congress"
Mr.. WILSON "When the majority Of a State
wish to divide they can do so. The aim OF
those in opposition to the article, he perceived,
was that the General Government should Gbet the
minority, by and that means divide State against
its own consent" )"
In favor of Mr.. Martins substitute, only New
Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland voted; and the
provision it now stands in the Constitution was
agreed to.
We thus see that there was perfect accord be-
tween the friends and opponents Of this clause OF
the Constitution as to the effect it would produce.
1t agreed on all hands that it would prevent
Congress from admitting new State, which
should arise in territory situated as the western
territory Of several Of the States at that time,
without the consent of the State concerned. For
illustration, let us suppose a case which might
have arisen in the northwestern territory, if Vir-
ginia had not ceded it to the United States. Vir-
ginia claimed it as part Of her territory, although
she had never actually extended her jurisdiction
over it. But her title was disputed by the other
States. They said, that although it was within
the limits she claimed under her charter, yet that
she had not actual occupancy of it; that it was in
the occupancy of hostile lndians that it had been
acquired from France by Great Britain in the
treaty OF 1863; that it had been rescued from
Great Britain by the common efforts of all of the
colonies, who by their conquest had succeeded to
her rights; and that therefore it ought to belong to
all. Now suppose this dispute had not been ended
by the Virginia deed of cession, and the inhabi-
tants of the territory had met and formed a con-
and ad Par 1poiSS pto thaT Ipin
will any one say that Congress could have decid
ed the in favor Of the United States by their
admissions Was it not precisely such case
against which the provision under consideration
was designed to provide?
But, sir, | take higher ground I not only
contend that the provision under consideration
was intended to apply to cases where there was
dispute, but that it was only to such it was de-
signed to apply. The idea that Congress could
dismember State, without its consent, by ad-
hitting portion OF its people who should meet
within it's known and recognized limits and form
a Constitution, into the Union as a new State,
would have been at war with every notion Of go
vernment prevalent at the time, and never would
have entered the head Of the wise men who ia
vored the Constitution. lfa portion Of the people
of State, within its undisputed jurisdiction,
should meet without authority from the existing
Government, to form constitution preparatory
to admission into the Union as new State, it
preston of which, another provision of the Con-
sttution would provide The provision to which
allude is the fourth section of the fourth article
OF the Constitution: the one to which Mr.. Mar
tin referred, and which is in these words: "The
United States shall guarantee to every State in
this Union republican form OF government, and
shall protect each Of them against invasion; and
application If the Legislature, or Of the Erecutire
iohen the Legislature cannot be conrened, against do
mestic piolence.'
We have thus seen the history Of the restric-
ton upon Congress in admitting new States.
Now, sir, let us apply to it Mr. Jefferson 5 rule
Of construction in such cases: On every ques-
ton Of construction, (said he, carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was
adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the de-
bates, and insteud of trying what meaning may
be squeezed out of the text or invented against it,
conform to the probable one in which it was
passed." Do this, and can there be doubt left
on the mind of any one 10 the true construc-
ton of the provision of the Constitution respect
ing the admission Of new States' The restriction
in it was most clearly designed for IA case of dis
puted jurisdiction, and the purpose of its trainers
was, IN such case, to prevent Congress, which
was so likely to be actuated by sectional or po-
litical views; from abeiting (to quote the express
sion used in the Conventon) the new State by
by her admission into the Union without the con-
sent Of the State concerned.
Now let US apply these principles to the Of
New Mexico. Two-thrds of her territory and
people are within the limits claimed by Texas in
her Constitution; she has passed years ago,
solemn acts extending her Constitution and laws
over it; to large portion of the territory included
in the limits claimed by New Mexico, she has ac-
tualy extended her jurisdiction, by organizing her
counties, establishing her courts, and administer
ing Justice in them, without opposition from any
one. Now, sir, if New Mexico, under these cir
stances, is admitted, will not Texas be ousted Of
her .jurisdicton and curtaed in her limits, in fla
grant violation Of the provision of the Constu
ton which am considering, and also the clause
which declares that "nothing in this Constitution
shall be so construed as to preudce any claims Of
the United States or of any particular State"
But it is said the admission of New Mexico as
a State would not prejudice the claim Of Texas.
That after her admission, the case could be car
red before the Supreme Court, where the question
OF boundary would be imparially settled.
Sir, utterly deny the jurisdiction OF the Su-
preme Court in any such case. | deny that the
Constitution confers upon the Judiciary "any po-
tical power whatever" But question of boun-
lary between States is one affecting their sover-
eighty in most vital particular, and is eminently
IF political character. The judicial power Of
the United States originally extended to ceases in
aw and equity arising under the Constitution and
The laws of the United States treaties made or
which shall be made under their authority; to all
cases affecting ambassadors, or other public min
sters and consuls; to all cases Of admiralty and
jurisdiction; to controversies to which
the United States is a party; to controversies be-
tween two more States {; between a State and
citizens Of another State; between citizens Of diff
ferent States between citizens of the same State
claiming lands under grants of different States and
between State and citizen thereof and foreign
States, citizens or subjects"
The eleventh amendment of the Constitution |
lecnres, that "the judicial power of the United
States shall not be construed to extend to any suit
IN iaw or equity, commenced or prosecuted against
,ne of the United States by citizens Of another
State, or by citizens subjects Of any foreign
State"
The words, "cases in law and equity" and
controversies" employed in the second section
of the third article Of the Constitution; are used
Is synonymous. This is shown by the second
clause of the second section, and also by the
amendment just referred to. The second clause
IS in these words: ''In all cases affecting ambas-
sadors, and other public ministers and consuls,
and those in ,chich State shall be party, the Su
preme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In
al the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme
Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to
law and fact &c. Here we see that the Const-
tuition, as it originally stood, giving the Supreme