The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1850-02-20
FpnrNu
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA. FEBRUARY 90 1880
Synopsis of Gen. Cass' Speech upon ths
subject of the Vvilmot Proviso.

The Senate then proceeded to the consdera-
ton fthe special order, the resolution submit
ted some time since by Mr.. Foote, declaring it
to be the duty of Congress, at the present ses-
sion, to provide territorial governments for the
Territories.
Mr. CAss proceeded to address the Senate on
the question of the Wimot proviso. He said,
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
cxpedicnt. The observations propose to offer,
will be directed chiefly to the constitutional
question, though before l close, | shall submit
some brief remarks upon the cxpcdency of ex-
ercsing this power, if we possess it.
Before, however, proceeding to the investiga-
ton of our rights and duties connected with this
proposition, shcre are some preliminary consd-
erations essential to the progress of the inquiry,
and to just conclusion, to which beg leave
to call the attention of the Senate. In the dis
cussions which have taken place upon this sub
ject, formerly and recently, all those who have
contended for the power of Congress to pass this
Wilmot proviso, have contcndcd for general and
unlimited power of Legislation over the terrific
ries l know of no exception to the univcrsa-
ty cf this proposition. The right to institute
governments, and the ri ght to legislatc over the
internal concerns Of those distant communities,
are used as convertible terms, without recogni-
zng or acknowledging any difference in the
principles themselves or in their practical app-
cation And this disregard of one of the canons
OF freedom, hallowed by our own revolution, is
not confined to the discussions here, but extends
everywhcre-to the judicial tribunals and to the
commentators, whose habits of invcs cation are
more favorable to calm and searching inquiry
than ours can be-
MIR. SARGENT in his constitutional law, when
he says s'the power Of governing and of legislat-
ing for territory is the inevitable consequence
of the right to acquire terrtory,' evidently con-
founds this exercise Of two powers as different
IN their origin as in their operation. And Judge
Story takes the same view, saying in place,
''that as the government possesses the right to
acquire territory, it would seem to follow that
1t possesses the power to govern what it has SO
acqured;' and in another place, "thc power of
Congress over the public territory is clearly cx-
elusive and universal, and their legislation is
subject to no control, and forth. And so
does Mr. Rawle, who says "that the power of
governing and legislating for territory may be
the inevitable consequences of the right to ac-
quire territory" And in the recorded opinions
of some of the judges, we are told that Congress
has 'plenary powers and "complctc iursdic-
ton, ''wthout linitation,'' over the territories
And these deductions, for they are only dcduc-
tions, made with as much coolness 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 'sthat his
Ma esty in Parliament of right had the power to
bend the people of those colonies by statutes in
all cases whatsoever" And a member in this
body, (Berricn) high in character as a jurst and
statesman, has characterized the difference be-
tween the power to institute governments in the
territories, and the power of unlimited Congress
sional legislation over them, as a bundle Of ub-
surdltlcs; while a representative from Indiana,
(PcttD in the ncighboring Hail. with a courage
that almost rcdecms him from the ccnsurc which
such sentiment cannot but inspire in an Am
erican breast, says, "that this government could
establish dcspotism in any of its territories, be-
yond doubt. This government could sell them
into slavery ifit pleased" But with commen-
dable charity, he provides specific for the
wound he inflicts, by assuring us there is no
danger. 1t would be preposterous to suppose
there Was ''for there is great difference between
the possession and the exercise of power
Where he learned this lesson, that there is no
danger Of the abuse of power, confess my in
ability to tell. 1t is doctrine better suited to
) the Neva than the Wabash. thought the con-
verse ofthc proposition, the proncness to abuse,
was written upon every page ofthe political his
tory Of the world, and in warning characters on
our own institutions; and | thought it was the
jealousy Of tendency that dictated our constitu-
tons, and that calls into action ceaseless vigi-
lance, by which power is watched and restrain
ed by the American people, And member
from New York (Duer) considers the efforts to
secure the people of the territories the right to
legisate for their own internal affairs Gas inten-
ded only tor the weaker brethren, sort fchick-
en- soup for invalids. This sneer at human lights
IS worthy OF a place in Johnson SHRED pamphlet
against the colonies, entitled "Taxation no Tyr
amy Perhaps this sentiment may be found
there. 1t Is long time since read it, but there
is no plagiarism in the language. That belongs
to the Speaker. 1t was precisely this claim of
unlimited Legislation which led to our revolution-
ary struggle, and our separation from England
and must confess l have listened with amaze
ment in this hall of American legislation, to the
long and subtle metaphysical inquiries into the
rights of soverei gnty, and the powers it brings
with it, as though the rights of sovereignty were
everything and the rights of man nothing.
1t is revival almost in terms of the discus
sion between the parent country and the colo
nies, but to which we have changed Places and
now assume to exercise the very power-of le-
gIslation without rcpresentation-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 parliament over the colonies, and
as tilcy found were In their constitution, they
admitted none in their legislation. They could
not elevate their eyes from their own narrow
, system to those fundamental principles of hui
man freedom, 'swritten,' as Lord Chatham said
Sin the great volume of nature, which are innu-
, merable and indestructible." They had one ad-
vantage in the argument, however, of which we
are deprived They had an unwritten constitu.
ton to appeal to, and Legislature to act which
: by the theory of their government, was omnpo.
tent. When, therefore, the exercise of any pow.
er was brought into the question, was not neces
sary to establish its existence, but it was 70,
those who opposed it to establish the limitations
by which it was sought to be controlled. But the
powers of government are both defcd and limit
ed, and before the authority of Congress can be
brought to bear upon any subject, the constitu
tional grant Of power must be clearly pointed out
Mr.. c. did not intend to argue with any mar
who does not acknowledge the difference be.
tween the right Of unlimited legislation oyer dis
tant regions, where there is no representation
and the right to organize governments, leayng
to the people to be affected by them to regulate
their own concerns in their own way. The one
might be necessary and defensible, but the other