Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1850-02-11
SKETCH OF THE
REMARKS OF GEN. CASS.

In the Senate of the United States, January 21st,
1850, on the Wilnot Proviso.
Mr.. Cass proceeded to address the Senate OH
the question of the Wilmot Proyiso. He spoke
in substance as follows -
There are two principal questions involved in
the controversy respecting the Wilmot Proviso
as indeed there are in all the Legislation of Con-
gress first, whether that measure is constitu-
tional, and next, if constitutional, whether it is
expedient The observations propose to offer,
will be directed chiefly to the constitutional
question, though before | close, shall submit
some other remarks upon the expediency of ex-
ercisng this power, if we possess it.
Before, however, proceeding to the investiga-
tou Of our rights and our duties, connected with
this proposition, there ale some preliminary con-
slderatlons essential to the progress of the in
curry, and to just conclusion, to which l beg
leave to call the attention of the Senate.
In the discussions which have taken place up
this subject formerly and recently, all those who
have commended for the power of Congress to
pass this Wimot Proviso, have contended for
general and unlimited power of Legislation over
the territories. | know ofno exception to the
universally of the proposition. The right to in
stitute Governments, and the right to legislate
over the internal concerns of those distant COM
munities are used as convertible terms without
recognizing or acknowledging any difference in
the principles themselves, or in their practical
application. And this disregard of one of the
canons OF freedom, hallowed by our own revola-
ton, is not confined to the discussions here, but
extends every where-to the Judicial tribunals,
and to the commentators, whose habits of in
vestigat,on are more favorable to calm & search
ing inquiry than ours can be. Mr.. Sergeant, in
his constitutional law, when he says, ttthe DOW.
er of governing, and of legislating for terrific
ry, is the inevitable consequence Of the right to
acquire territory" evidently confounds this ex-
as in their operation. And Judge Story takes
the same view, saying in one place, s'that as the
Government possesses the right to acquire terri
tory, it would seem to follow that it possesses
the power to govern what it has so acquired;n
and in another place, 'tthe power of Congress o.
yer the public territory is clearly exclusive and
universal, and their Legislation is subject to no
control,o and SO forth. And so does MIR. Rawle,
who says, "that the power of governing and leg
islating for territory, may be the inevitable
consequence of the right to acquire territory.'
And in the recorded opinions of some of the
Judges, we are told that Congress has "plenary
powersa and complete juTisdction'' without
limitation" over the territories. And these de-
ductions-for they are only deductions-are
made with as much GOODNESS as Lord Mansfield
could have exhibited, had he been called upon
to decide the validity of the Boston Port bill. or
of the act which declared ssthat His Majesty, in
Parliament of right had the power to bind the
people of those colonies by statutes in all cases
whatsoever" And a member of this body,
(Berrien,) high in character as urist & states.
man. has characterized the difference between
the power to institute Governments in the terri
tories, and the power of unlimited Congressional
legislation over them, as bundle of absurdities
while a representative from Indiana (Pe,ilt) in
the neiehboring hall, with courage that almost
redeems him from the censure which such SEN
tlment cannot but inspire in an American breast
says shat this Government could establish
despotism, IN any OF its territories, beyond
doubt. This Government could sell them into
slavery if it pleases." But with commendable
charity, he provides specific for the wound he
lnilcts, by assuring us there is no danger. 1t
would be preposterous to suppose there was
"for there is great difference between the pos.
session and the exercise of powern Where he
learned this lesson that there is no danger of The
abuse of power confess my inability 10 tell
1t is doctrine better suited to the Neya than TO
the Wabash. thought the converse Of the pro-
position, the proneness to abuse, was written
upon every page Of the political history of the
world, and in warning characters on our own in
situations and thought it was the jealousy of
this tendency that dictated our constitution, and
that calls into action ceaseless vigilance, by
which power is watched and restrained BY the
American people.
And member from New York (Duer) con-
sders the effort to secure the people of the terri
tories the right to legisate for their own internal
affairs, "as intended only for the weaker breth-
rem, sort OF chicken soup for invalids." This
sneer at human rights is worthy Of place in
Johnson's hired pamphlet against the Colonies,
entitled "Taxation no Tyranny" Perhaps the
sentiment may be found. there. 1t is a long time
since read ii; but there is no plagiarism in the
language That belongs to the speaker It was
precisely this claim of unlimited legislation.
which led TO our revolutionary struggle, and our
separation from England; and must confess, |
have listened with amazement, in this Hall of
American legislation, to the long and subtle
metaphysical inquiries into the rights of sove-
reignty, ard the powers it brings with it, as tho
the right OF sovereignty We're everything, and
the rights of man nothing. 1t is revival almost
in terms OF the discussions between the parent
country and the colonies, but in which we have
changed places; and now assume to exercise the
very power-of legislation without representa-
tion-which we first denied in argument and
then resisted in arms. The British statesmen
could not understand what practical limits there
could be to the power of the sovereign parlia
ment over the colonies, and as they found none
III tiiclT COtStltutlOIl, tIcy duItlcu none III their
legislation. They could not elevate their eyes
from their own narrow system to those funda-
mental principles of human freedom, 'swritten, p
as Lord Chatham said, sin the great volume of
nature, which are innumerable and ndestructi-
be." They had one advantage in the argument,
however, OF which we are deprived. They had
an unwritten constitution TO appeal 10, and Le-
gislature to act, which, by the theory of their
government, was omnipotent When, there
fore the exercise of any power was brought into
question, it was not necessary to establish its
existence but it was for those who opposed it to
establish the limitations by which it was sought
to be controlled. But the powers of our Gov
eminent arc both defined and limited, and be-
tore the authority of Congress can be brought to
bear upon any subject, the constitutional grant
OF power must be clearly pointed out
Mr.: c. did not intend to argue with any man
who does not acknowledge the difference be-
tween the right of unlimited legislation over dis
tant REGIONS, where there is no REPRESENTATION.