The Mississippi Creole. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1841-1851, 1850-10-26

alse assumptions; Congress IS not sovereign
,ver the people Of territories. It possesses
he power to dispose Of and make oil needlul
rules and regulations respecting the territory
" other property belonging to the United
Saies,n A Il other power over the territories Is
but incidental, to bc exercised only in cases
Of necessity. Where an express grant Or sub
stanlve power can be exercised and fully car
ried ont without the aid Of incidental power,
then none such exists. The constitution no.
where declares that Congress shall pass
acts to authorize the people Of the terri
torres TO form Sta'o Government, and |
therefore il Congress possesses this power, II
must be Ga incidental power, to be exercised
ouly in aid of some express power. The 81
sectioe OF the 4th article Of the constitution
declares that "neO States may be admitted 6y
he Congress into this Union" Hprescribes no
condition or terms on ,ohieh Congress may admit
ne,0 Stale crcrpt Oae-thGt ii shall hare a repu0-
hcan form of goUernment. Here is an express
rrant-can il or can it not be carried out with
out an act authorizing the people OF territory
to form a State government9 That must be
the test. If can, then such an act cannot be
Indispensably necessary and to hold it TO be
necessary, is to pcrvert the rules Of construc-
ton, and make the express grant but an inci'
dent TO the implied one. il is to make the eX'
ercise of the implied power, condition prece-
l., ,ho tsto If thn py 0fant.-
But il it were true that Congress holds the
sovereignty over the territories, could i not as
well rauiy the ind pendent action OF the people,
aud thus admit its validity, as TO give the sane
ZION in advance! II would seem SO. True, it
has been the practice in most instances, though
not uniform one, TO enable the people Of the
territories, by act Of Congress, to torn State
constitution. And conclusive commentary
on this question ia found in the past history q
the government To 60 no further back than
: 1886, we find Two parallel cases. The people
OF Arkansas and Michigan formed State con
stitutions without ats Of Congress anthorzlni
! them to do so, and were admitted into the Un
: ion. There is no difference n principle be
=, tween those cases and California, or if ther
be difference il operates in favor OF the latts'
? In Arkansas and Michigan territorial gov
ernments had been established, but those gov
j., ernments conferred no power t1 form govern
ments. The people conld exercise no pow'
i under the authority Of their territorial GOV
ernmen,s, that was not authorized by goverI
- mcn, and no such power as that exercised w
conferred. They were bound to make the
:. action subordinate 10 The government; but Il
power they did exercise was hostile TO aT
= above the government. 1t was throwing
!, an established government, given them by Il
proper authority, and taking new one in
place. With great plausibiity might it ha
been urged in those cases, that acts oil Co
rress were necessary, because as the peep
were under regular government given the
l. by Congress, that government should ha
-, been regularly superseded before Onothsr "
formed. Yet we then heard no complaint
n violation of the constitution. The people
California had no government, and now WI
y, they to get it! Both the right and the proc
-. ~ seem TO me to be clear enough. WITH u'
is essentially a fundamental and lnneX'
"s principle rha the people possess all slvere
w power, and this is true as well in unorgan'i
=, as urganzed b,des Of people. III our org
ization springs from that sorrce-is built VI
y, that foundation. Where organization eX
~, il must be obeyed, but where no organ'za'
exists, the principle still exists, aud the pee
.;a. may act upon it. American citizens on a"
lean soil. in the absence OF any restrain
~ power, may exert their sovereign power IN
formation OF constitution. With the acqr
,ion Of the territories, the constitution
there in all its parts and principles. II
P'V Lnowl. Dies the sovereign power Of the PEE
,r' and under it they had right to form
7, ernment and demand admssioninto the Un
~ and Congress, in admitting them, exeFcls
poliucal power expressly delegated. len
rr,I is there is no foundation for the argument
,he an,i.sla3ery clause in the constitute
~ California; is the Wifmot PrOvIso OF Cong
having derived It's validity from the act oI
RI mission. If the action Of the people de
=. i ihvalidity rom tie acl Of admission woul Il
=, oe this result equally follow from law au
izing them to act? If the Independent
loion of the people can have no validity wl'ho'
, 49,. assent Of Congruss first given, then 1t
.s.., look to that assent for its validity JH
80 : much as though the assent had tollowe
action. In both instances It's validity
.;u be alike traceable to the act OF Congress-
In the people in forming constitution ac'
!. of sovereign capacity, notdeTiyed from Con
n.. And when State may alone come I'M
~ Union, it may do so with or without 81
!, This, all will admit. The question the'
would seem 10 be, coulc California rig!
come. into the Union-not could she co
with her ant-sIavery constitution, and
r'' We who oppose her would be as much boun'
y 'a'"a' so. if she had tolerated slavery.