The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-06-28


tell under the Jurisdiction OF Congress, Whose laws
were violated, or the State Legislature. The de-
cision was that he fell under State authority
The argument related to the question Of the rights
Of the sovereign States. True, the consequent
aetisn Of Congress in the matter placed the terri
torial districts ON the same footng with the States
in this particular; but this implied nothing more
than that the charter governments Of such districts
we're supposed 10 have conferred upon them
authority in the matter. 1t was not meant that
lprevois 70 such charters the people found on the
public land would have had any such Jurisdiction.
Certainly John Jacob Aston and his trappers on
the Oregon river could not have ousted Congress
| Of jurisdiction in like case.
| But the advocates Of the right Of independent
legislation IN the districts, involve thelnsevesin
most extraordinary dilemma. By what course Of
reasoning would they establish the authority Of
the Consultation over those districtsi The people
there are not parties to the Constitution. What
fright has Congress- to q coin money /" for them. or
regulate "weights and measures, : or |" establish
pOst-ofhces and post roads Or, indeed, to exer-
i Csc over thon any OF the dAlegAtsd powers
thess assssscss hAsA dsanesaea ~ sach Powess 70
US. they are not represented here; nor do they
i participate in the election Of President. The
maxim. Of the right Of selfgovernment is not
restricted to 9 internal affairs, as the argument
Of gentlemen would seem to imply. IL compre-
hends, where It exists, all affairs, internal and
external. We have no more right TO force upon
them the Constitution of the United States, than
/ to subject them 70 the legislation of Congress.
Both acts are equally incompatible with their
right OF self-control. But sir, II 10 needless 70
argue further against such egregious folly.
But gentlemen Will insist on the source or power
lin Congress being pointed out. am anxious to
satisfy their demand but my position is 80
strongly fortified by authority, and by the mani
fest absurdity of the opposite position, and rests
80 stably in the sound sense of practical and ju-
dicious minds, that could not feel justified IN
OBTAINING the committee with detailed argument.
| shall satisfy myself, therefore, with giving a
clue to, what conceive to be, the true view Of
| the question.
/ The great and fundamental usurpation of the
old Congress, under the articles of confederation
i was the assumption of authority 10 Otun external
provincial dependencies. This being done, almost
everything else followed as a matter Of course.
The convention that framed the Constitution
| found those dependencies constituent elements Of
the Union. They found the Union composed
partly of sovereign States, and partly Of depend
| ent colonies. And for the Union, so conditioned
and constituted, they made the Constitution.
The Constitution, in its preamble, expresses itself
to be made g for the United States that is for
the States already united. The Constitution did
not create the Union, but only made new gov
eminent for it. could adduce an abundance Of
authority in support Of this proposition. The
convention did not think it worth while to create
la power TO own these dependencies. Such q
power, although usurped, had been fully executed
and finished, and had resulted in permanent
condition OF things. The territories are therefore
only alluded to in the Constitution us already
belonging to the United States. The territorial
districts, with their governments-their United
States Judges, governors, and councilstheir dele
4. gates sitting on the floor of CONGRESS-. with the
privilege Of debate--continued over under the new
| Constitution, lust as thew existed under the
i articles OF confederation. No mention was made
| Of them In the new Constitution.
/ The force Of what have said will become more
striking from an illustration Suppose we should
stitutionalIy admitted into the Union--would WI
think Of expelling her? Surely not. Would W,
thing of altering the Constitution SO as to legaz,
the acti Not at all. Although conventions should
be actually in session, with competent authority
to ratify the act, proposition for that purpos,
would be laid on the table as nugatory. And
such a course would not be Welding to the force
of mere precedent, but to the force Of circum
stances--ani rreversable condition Of things Thus
will be seen the situation of the trainers Of tn,
Constitution in relation to the territorial posses
sions. And if we will endeavor to realize the
situation, we shall find no difficulty in realizing
how they reasoned.
Now, from the o,c,,ership of colony there fol
flowed, as matter Of course, the right to maxi
all laws " necessary and proper !" TO a ceonia
possession The fact Of ownership imposed upoi
Congress the task Of government. There was n,
i need OF any grant OF power. And this Is IN con
formity with the whole method Of the Constitu
ton, which is, TO indicate the subject Of power
without pretending-to specify or enumerate wha
laws Congress may make upon the subject
They are only required to be necessary and APP
lpropriate laws. The convention did not, in fact,
expressly create any power. II was thought suf-
hcient that Congress had unidentified possession o.
the subject admit, as ! have long since been
convinced, that the power to dispose OF and make
all needful rules and regulations concerning thu
territory regards the territory SIMPLY as property
But 1t will be asked, why this minor power was ex
pressed, and the greater are omitted Because 1
portion Of the territory lay within the jurisdiction
of sovereign States, and State might upon thu
pretext Of eminent domain, claim power para
mount TO that Of the land owner; and as the or
ganized districts were shortly to become States
and there would be, IN that event, danger OF tn
same pretence being set up by them, the power
was expressed in general terms. The expression
Of this power, therefore, was TO effect an unequvo
cal exclusion Of any State power, as my frient
from Virginia (Mr. b. has properly argued
This provision of the Constitution is, strictly