Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1850-02-11
STAUNT0N, VIRGINIA, MONDAY, FEBRUARY H. 1850.

which tempered the despotism of the measure,
could never apply in the case of remote colo
ny. This right also was one of the undoubted
terms OF the constitution.
The principles involved in this controversy
was the lnseparable connexion between legisla-
ton and representation. What necessity was
there Tor It's violation at the present time? Were
not the people of the territories competent to
manage their own internal affairs! They were
ourown people, with our habits, views, intelli-
gcnce-all that constitutes national IDENTITY
They had proved their capacity for self govern
ment The objection that portion of the peo-
pie OF the territories were foreigners, could not
be maintained. vast number were known to
be American emigrants, who would always ex-
ercise preponderating influence controlling all
paUiic measures. What then was there to fear!
The great issues of life and death were left to
the people. No one called that in question:
And to the same trust might be committed with
equal safety, all the other objects of internal L.
gislation. The late proceedings in California to
organize government, and the constitution
which has been the result, are the best proofs
that could be offered Of the capacity of the peo-
pie to lay the foundations of their political insti-
buttons, wisely and Justly. What practical
commentary was that constitution upon the
doubt which they heard expressed in that hall &
elsewhere respecting the intelligence of those
remote territories, and the necessity of restrain
ing them by Congressional legislation. He
knew of no constitution in this broad Union
where the principles of national and progressive
liberty are better secured than in this first great
political offering from the shores the Pacific
So much for the difference, both in principle
and practice, between the power to institute
government for the territories, and the power of
internal legislation over them. But this diffe-
renee was not mere speculative one, nor one
which appeals merely to the feelings of the A.
merican people and their representatives. d. 1t
entered deeply into the question under conside-
ration, and the constitutional power of Congress
to legslate over them. But the difference was
merely a speculative one, not one which appeals
merely to the feelings of the American people
and their representatives. 1t entered deeply in
to the question under discussion, and the consti-
ional power of Congress to legslate over the ter
rltories, and thus presents itself in the very
threshold Of this inquiry There is no clause in
the constitution which gives Congress express
power to pass any law respecting slavery in the
territories. The authority was deduced from
various sources, which he proposed to examine
before he concluded. But every construction
which would give to foreign legislature iuris-
diction over the subject-by foreign he meant
NV CiOSteu ny people, " Ut Dy tnelr
acts, nor responsible to them-would equally
give it jurisdiction over every other department
OF life, social and political, in the territories
over the relations of husband and wife, of parent
and child, OF guardian and ward, as well as over
the relation OF master and servant, and embrace
ing within the sphere of its operations the whole
circle of human rights, personal and political
life, liberty, and property, in alltheir modes OF
enjoyment lsay .the power of Congress over
Slavery" for if we have the power to abolish or
exclude ii, we have the power TO reinstate it,
1t any one doubted this position, let him turn 10
the constitution and show the Limitation. Be-
fore he could believe that such a power was
granted, so remote from the object oflhe govern
ment which the trainers of the constitution
sought to establish, he must abandon many of
the illusions he had cherished respecting the
wisdom of the statesmen who composed the
convention of 1887. There were various clauses
OF the constitution, and various other sources.
foreign and domestic, whence this right of un-
limited legislation was sought to be deducctl
Some OF these were express constitutional grants
of power, and they fairly included the authority
to bind the territories in all cases hatsoever then
there was an end 10 this question and they might
pass the proviso, and regulate all their other
sources whence the right is supposed to be in.
directly derived-as necessary TO the exercise OF
some power found in the constitution, or some
other power found out of the constitution. AT.
ter an argument to show the necessity for ascer.
tanning the extent Of this derivative power, as
claimed, from whence it was derived, Mr.. c.
reverted 10 the proposition that Congress has the
power Of legislation claimed, and observed that
il this power had been intended to be granted by
the constitution, nothing could have been easier
than for the convention TO have placed it beyond
doubt, by plain expression of the subject. II
the power "to make needful rules and reeula-
tons over the territory or other property of the
United States"-the clause most frequently re.
lied upon by the claimants Of this power-con-
veyed full legislative authority over this proper.
ty, and over all persons living on it, thus ma
king man the mere incident Of property, certain.
ly never were words more unhappily chosen,
nor reputation for clearness and certainty more
unjustly acquired. That the convention, when
they intended 10 convey full legislative powers,
knew what terms to employ, was manifest from
the phraseoogy of the provision for the govern
ment ofthe Federal District, and of places ceded
''tor the erection OF forts, magazines. arsenals,
dock yards and other needful buildings" where
the right was given in express terms, admitting
no doubt, and the very words We're employed
which are best adapted 10 convey the power in
tended to be granted, and no other power
When, therefore, construction was put upon
the authority to make needful rules and reeula
IoHo AV' PiolSAtJt "1ItA SuiiiCo ~ ldI CcyOnC
) the import of words, those assuming it were
bound to explain why similar language was moi
used to grant similar power, and by what just
: rule phrase so limited was made to convey a
) power SO unlimited No man had attempted to
do this, and twas an obstacle in hmine, which
till removed; was insuperable. 1t was little
curious to analyze the dffe4nt opinions of diff.
terent speakers and writer's on this subject, anc
to find what diversity of sentiment prevails res
tI,x
position. There seemed to be sort of consenta
: neous admission, that the power exists but Their
came the diversity of views, when seeking tc
justify its exercise by the provisions of the con
stitution. will (said MIR. CO. enumerate the
most prominent of these suggestions, and thel
proceed to test them by the principles of the
constitution.
/. The principal reliance till recently, for the
support OF this general power of legislation, has
hot FIX L.