The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-07-22

originally, in their own right. BY means OF the
Federal Constitution they created a Government
and vested it with only so much sovereign power
as was deemed Indispensable for the purposes
for which they created it. So intent were the
trainers Of the Constitution upon this, that they
made it an article, that 3the powers not delegat-
ed to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively or to the people,"
Upon the theory Of the British Government,
the sovereignty of acquired territory vests in the
King; by the American it vests in the States
or the people, except so far as the grants of the
Constitution vests it in the General Government.
The General Government can do nothing rs
principal, but must act solely rs the agent of its
creator Its acquistionsaref for the States and the
people andnotforit Whenit acquires terrific
ry it is for the States and the people, and il must
dispose Of it alone as the States and the people
have directed in the Constitution. 1t has no
original sovereignty over it It cannot establish
religion, grant titles of nobility, or do anything
forbidden by the Constitution, or not authorized
| by that instrument, more than in the territories
possessed by the United States at its formation;
aud all subsequently acquired territory is in the
same situation, and to be disposed Of in a SINH
ernment, The result of such an acquisition by
treaty or conquest is to place the territory thus
acquired under the power of the Government,
to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting it, as Of other property
of the United States. There is, then, not even
a fair pretence upon this ground to authorize the
passage of the "proviso."
The question then occurs, what authority is
conferred by the Constitution upon Congress
by the clause which says "the Congress shall
have power to dispose OF, and make all needful
rules and regulations respecting the territories
or other property Of the United States" Is the
'proviso a needful rule" or aregulation % Com
grees has heretofore established many territorial
governments without it. | may mention the
Mississippi, Florida, Orleans. and Arkansas ter
ritories, at the South, and Minnesota at the
Northwest. In these southern and southwest
ern territories slavery existed and continued un-
til they We're admitted as States, and still exists
1t was never sneedful" that slavery should be
excluded from these territories. This Govern
ment has existed now more than sixty years,
with ever-increasiug prosperity, and during all
this time it never has been deemed needful to
exclude slavery from any portion of the coun-
try south Of the line of the Missouri Compro-
mise line, (and Of this line propose to speak
further before have done) New Mexico and
California were acquired by the treasure and
blood of the whole Union, and it is not contro-
verified, that the South at least contributed her
full proportion. This newly acquired territory
is, then, the common property of the thirty
States of this Union Now, sir, is it needful, is
| it just, to exclude one-half of the Union from
the enjoyment of these territories! Werefer to
the Constitution to ascertsin the true and just
understanding between the States. At the time
OF its adoption nearly all of the States held
slaves; and can it be for a moment believed that
it was intended, by this large majority, that it
should ever be in the discretion of the General
Government to decide whether it was s'needfuP'
to exclude an institution which they all legalzed
within their limits
The clause under consideration extends not
only to the making of ssalf needful rules" and
regulations respecting the territories, but also
respecting other property of the United States;
and ii it authorize the proviso as to the terri
tories, it equally authorizes it as to thu aother
property" The United Stat es own land, which
is property, in New Mexico, in Illinois, and in
Alabama. If to snake needfll rules" &C.,
authorizes Congress to exclude slavery, it will
authorize it alike to introduce it; and it win
necessarily follow that Congress has the power
to exclude slavery from the public lands in Ala
bama or Louisiana, and to introduce it into llli-
nois or Michigan. This is but the fair incontes-
table result OF the power contended for, and
yet this propositions so absurd that there is no
one who will give it his assent
I Now. sir, let case analogous to this be stated,
appertaining to the common affairs of life. And
the principles Of justice are the same in all rela-
tons, whether as States or individuals Let a
partnership exist, with articles of partnership
STIMULATING how its affairs shall be managed.
Let it be provided that a majority of the part
ners shall have power to dispose of, and make
all needful rules and regulations respecting tie
territory or other property of the firm aud under
these stipulations lands have been acquired, and
have become the common property Of the part
nerslIp. Now, sir, the plain law and justice of
the case would be, that the several partners may
ENJOY 1t to an equal extent. But let a majority
of the partners become prejudiced against some
OF the family OF the other partners and under
the article that authorizes them to make all need
full rules and regulations, they should undertake
to exclude the minority from all enjoyment of
this common property. In this case, no man
who claims for himself the least honesty or re-
spectability, would hesitate for moment to de-
clare that the claim set up by the majority was
arrogant and unjust in the highest degree. And
yet this case differs in no essential particular
from the one now under consideration.
But, sir we may make the case still stronger.
The minority says to the majority, If such is
your opposition to us, and such your preudices
against us, that you will not enjoy this property
in common with us, though you have no right
to do so, yet for the sake of harmony, if you
will set apart to us but reasonable share ofthis
common property, we will be content No one
would hesitate to say this is sureIya fur propo
sition, such an one as if there be any justice in
the majority they will accept.
If thirty wholly separate and Independent
governments had banded together for ole com
mon purpose, that of waging the recent war
against Mexico, and carried it on in common, rs
that war was prosecuted, each natioa fiirni5hiag
its fur proportion Of men and money, and the
same had been terminated by joint treaty by
these allied nations upon thu one psrt, and
Mexico upon the other, and this country had
been thus acquired, and we Were now called
upon to divide the acquisition ainoag the sew
eral allies, would any gentleman propose to ex-
clude one-half Of these independent nations
L