The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-03-07
nun NATIONAL ERA, WASHINGTON, D. c., MARCH T. 1850.

We have in this paragraph distinct statement
that Judge Mclean confirmed the impression
of General Cass, that no authority was granted
in that instrument the Constitution to legislate
over the Territories and that consequently, there
was no power to pass the Wilmot Proviso!"
The opinions of Judge Mclean are given In
the article to which General Cas- alludes, pub
lished in the National Ia'slligeHcer, and to which
he referred the latter for full exposition Of them
Mr.. Polk. il was known, would veto the Wiimot
Proviso, and there was danger that Slavery would
creep into the Territories, and be Recognised ~
Congress. The question argued in the arncle was,
oCan Congress Institute Slsvery?' The Judge ar
pued that IL could not and his argument rested on
the denial not of |" any authority" IN Congress u
"legislate over the Territories" which IL the I'M
preston of General Cass, but, Of any SPeeVe gram
of power in Congress to establish lerri'oriai
Government The sole grant of power when re'a-
ted to the subject, empowered Congress SIMPLY 10
regulate the property Of the United states"
make all needful rules and regulations respecting
the territory or Other PROPERTY OF the united
Statesp-and this power ought to be exercised as
we'll within State as Territory. Inc power
to organize Territorial Government was i'm
piled, not specific and should be limited to those
measures necessary to efectuate the speclhc
grant of power Congress might, Therefore, organ
i1e a Government which should protect the
land purchased and provide for the administra-
sion of Justice among the settlers, but unless II
| were eontended that neither Of these acts could
/ be ACCOMPLISHED without the institution OF sla-
very, there was no constitutional mode for its In
| PRODUCTION Ii was impossible that any strict con-
sructionist could resist the force of this reason
ing unless by raising the plea that the siavehold,
err needed no lar to maintain his property in his
slaves, when he passed beyond the bounds Of the
/ local law Of his State But this was effectualy
anticipated by the writer, who clearly showed
that it was the settled doctrine of the Supreme
| Court of the United States, and of the country
\ that the relation of master and slave was depend
ent upon local law and when the slave escaped
| by any means to a State where such relation did
not exist, he was free, unless under general la"
he might be recaptured by his master, but that
there was no principle in the law Of nations, or IL
the common law, as between sovereigntes, which
authorized such recspture. The conclusion ar
rived at by the writer was all-important
eff free territory be simated, amt Congress hGe
NOT poper TO Institute SarTy rahm u, the teTrUor.
must remain free, umtil The people shall form &a'
Government; then The question may drise tn 40 -,
ercse Of thiS souereign power, 'ohsAeT SNueTy shat
! he admitted"
We have given a fair abstract Of the argument
from which it will be seen that General Cass was
by no means justified in asserting that his i'm
preston that no authority was granted to Con
! gress to legislate over the Territories and that
consequently, the Proviso was unconstitutional
was confirmed by Judge McLea Not word il
the article of the eminent Judge gives any coun
tenance to the statement and that he entertain'
or has expressed at any time views in conflict
with those stated in that article, no one will nre
tend 1t will not do for General Cass tb intro
duce Judge Mclean az an endorser of hiA notions
concerning the unconstitutionality and inexpedi
ency of the Wilmot Proviso; nor had he any
authority for even implying such endorsement.