The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-04-03


question OF domestic jurisdiction, and, according 70 the
doctrine OF The Ohio courts both State and federal the
fpeope cannot surrender their power over H. The appi
cation or the ordinance, then, was not understood az
conflicting with the full and free sovereignty oil the eo-
pe nor are the aeis Of Congress in relation to the sub
ects OF the ordinance TO be understood as restraints bu
simply as Affirmative OF the peoples rights
Two sorts Or grades Of government appear to have
4beep provided BY the ordinance for the Territories Both
exponenal Of and adapted to- the ability OF the peo-
3pe to protect themselves The first was composed OF
xgoyenor, with Judges and Legislative council appoint
3ed by the President though, in one or two instances,
was elected BY the people The second besides the
4lave council and elective house OF representatives.
j In the first, the legislative power OF the Territory was
placed in the hands OF the governor and Judges or gov
3enor and Legislative councils and in the second, It was
4odged n the hands OF the governor and general assem-
3by Where the ordinance was applied TO the Territory,
the power was declared TO extend to the making Of all
laws not Inconsistent with its principles and articles
but in Territories where the ordinance was not applied
Congress declared that the Legislative power OF the Ter.
o was y ns saa
the right disapprove the laws, and declared that aer
which, they were TO be Of eec but in the second,
tins reservation was omitted until .he passage o 'ns ac,
passed in 1896. provided Tor government Vi
the second grade and for the first time interrupted the
settled practice IN regard 70 governments OF that Kind
One of its provisions requires as in governments OF the
first grade, that all laws enacted by the territorial legisa
ture shall be submitted TO Congress-, and claims for the
= right TO "disapprove" them. ".
II violated practice which had continued from the for
nation Of the government until that time, and found
sanction in the ordinance OF 17S7. Once adopted, how
ever, the principle retained, and in succession ai
piled to Iowa, Oregon, and Minnesota. The nonparti-
cpation OF the people IN government OF the first grade
arose from presupposed inability on he part; and y
stances Congress should watch over their interests with
guardian care. This however, was not the case in a
q Of Congress was, therefore, violation Of right In
point OF practice Congress has used the power spang-
y find only one case in the Territory Of the North
west, in 1872; one in Michigan, in 1907; and some
few in Florida, along in the years from 1928 to 1926;
but these were all under governments OF the first
grade. Under governments OF the second grade, |
know OF but a single instance Thus, the practice
has soened down the principle, though the principle
remains but up 1885, the right to control in local mat
tiers the will OF the people in the Territories was never
claimed by Congress Congress has passed more than
one hundred acts in relation to the Territories yet they
almost entirely upon the same subjects. know OF
but two exceptions, prior to the date of which speak
related to the Territory of Orleans and prohibited the
importation OF slaves from without the limits of the
United States, from any place within them, if imported
into the United States subsequent to the year and
the other related to the Territory Of Mississippi, and pro-
OF the United States. Slaves, however, were held in
Orleans and Mississippi them and slavery has been
nerdcted there by any authority before nor since But
these provisions enacted before there general
assembly in either OF these places and besides were sup
posed to be legitmatey within the power OF regulating
commerce, and therefore within the warrant OF the con-
stituion.
The contemporary understanding of the extent to which
the ordinance obligatory the people is partly
shown by single fact Ii is not conclusive, but ii
shows some Of the impressions of the day: allude to
The petition presented by certain citizens OF Virginia. to
the territorial legislature Of the northwest asking per-
mission TO settle the territory with their slaves The
ordinance had just been passed The petitioners were
familiar with it, and must have been impressed with the
popular understanding OF its power The permission was
refused; but that might have been, and probably was,
from policy But the request is evidence that the peti
TONERS at least did not understand the ordinance para
mount to the peoples sovereign will similar case,
understand occurred in Indiana. As guaranty, the
dnance could prevent the people from regulating their
own AFFAIRS and their right TO make their own laws was
recognised by the spirit OF the congressional acts
But admitting, for the argument that the ordinance was,
to extent act Of power over the people, it must
be admitted on the other hand, that il was one which
necessity required Scattered that vast region their
thin numbers could not support governments and under
these circumstances, congressional aid kindness
But gilt Is not evidence OF right on either side.
The calls Of humanity may require met enter my neigh
boris house. but thousand charitable visits give me
legal right to his threshold in opposition 10 his will
Benevolence necessity may justify congressional in
reference, but its extent must be measured by their
limits The creation OF State government OF necessity
sets aside the congressional local laws and, as that can
be created at their instance, these laws al lest de-
pend for their validity upon the peoples implied assent
III look 10 the practice in relation 10 the anti slave
~ clause alone we find that has been applied 10 the
Territories OF Ohio Indiana Illinois, Michigan, Wscon
sin, Iowa. Oregon, and Minnesota-eight in all II was
specially excepted in regard 10 Tennessee Mississippi,
Orleans, Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas. and Florida
seven The precedents then stand eight for and seven
against and, in point OF authority, amount TO nothing.
They amount TO nothing a matter of authority, be-
cause question OF power, il seems TO have been set
tied exercised In every but an echo oil the will
Of the people in the Territory, and therefore they afford no
in other words they not evidence OF any power in the
case Considered matter of policy, the precedents
show that Congress has held even hand-equaizing
lis prohibitions and consents II is true that North Caro-
lna in her cesson stipulated for Tennessee, and thai
Georgia stipulated for Alabama and Mississippi; but il
well known that the right OF Georgia to the latter was
but OF light esteem, and that that Territory was establish
ed before her cession On the other hand Il may be
marked that the five northwestern States were all EN-.
braced in the ordinance OF 1884, though il is also true
that il was specially recognised in its application TO each
. OF the Territories within the original bounds
Louisiana contained slaves, but there were none OF
rather there were no more, the Territories which
compose the States OF Arkansas and Missouri than there
within the limits ceded by Virginia; and Il will moi
be denied that the power OF Congress those Terrific
ries quite unlimited as il was over the Territory
. OF the Northwest
Concedng, then, all that can be asked, the settlement
OF the question in Arkansas, Iowa, and Minnesota, was
the result OF the Missouri compromise OF an agreements
agreement independent Of and behind the question oi
exactly equal in point OF number, where Congress has
and has not applied the interdict 10 slavery Whatever
might otherwise have been the result Oregon had, by
act OF her people, forbidden slavery within her lin.
its, and Congress could safely declare in affirmation o
what had been already done. So far as practice goes
then, the general facts stand thus; For nearly half
ry ending in 1885, Congress uniformly and practically
rial legislatures, to pass their laws uncontrolled By
congressional acton but since that PERIOD that body has
assumed the power TO control them.
So far as the slavery clause is concerned though Con-