The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1850-02-20

the measure, could apply in the case Of a remote
colony. This right also was one of the undoubt-
cd terms of the constitution. The principle in
volved in this controversy was the inseparable
connexion between legislation and representa-
ton. What necessity was there for its violation
at the present time?-Were not the people of the
territories competent to manage their own af.
fairs. They were our own people, with our hu-
bits, views of intelligence-all that constitutes
national identty.-Thev have proved their ca
pacity for self government. The objection that
aportion fthe people of the territories were for
elgners, could not be maintained. A vast num-
Der were known to be American emigrants, who
would always exercise preponderatlng inf1u-
ence, controlling all public measures What then
was there to fear? The great issues of life and
death were left to the people No called
that in question. And to the same trust might
be committed with equal safety, all other objects
of internal Legislation.
The late proceedings in California to organize
a government, and the constitution which has
been the result, are the best proofs that could be
offered of the capacity of the people to Law the
foundation of their political institutions, wisely
and jnstly. What practical commentary was
that constitution upon the doubt which they had
heard expressed in this hall and elsewhere, re-
spectmg the intelligence of those remote terrific
rics, and the necessity of restraining them by
Congressional Legislation. He knew of no con
stituton in this broad Union where the princi-
Piles of national and progressive liberty are bet
ter secured than in this first great political offer
ing from the shores of the Pacific. So much for
the difference, both in principle and in practice,
between the power to institute governments for
the territories, and the power of internal legisa
ton over them. But this difference was not
mere speculative one, nor 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 const-
tional power of Congress to legislatc over the
territories, and thus present itself in the very
threshold of this inquiry There is no clause in
the constitution which G ives 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 juris-
, dcton over the subject of savcry-bv forcign
he meant not elected by the people, to be affect
cd by their acts, nor responsible to them-would
equally give it jurisdiction over every other de-
partmcnt oflifc, social and POLITICAL in the terri
tories-over the relations of husband and wife,
Of parent and child, Of guardian and ward, as
we'll as over the relations Of master and servant,
and embracing within the sphere of its operations
the whole circle Of human rights, personal and
politcal-lifc, liberty, and property in all their
modes of enjoyment. | say ''thc power of Con-
gress over slavery" for if we have the rowerto
abolish or exclude it, we have the power tore
nstatc it. fany one doubted this position, let
him turn to the constitution, and show the mi-
tation
Before he could believe that such power was
granted, remote from the object Of the gov
crnmcnt 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 con-
vention of 1857. There various clauses of
the constitution, and various other sources, for
elgn and domestic, whence this right Of unlimit-
ed Legislation sought to be deduccd. Some
OF these were express constitutional grants of
power, and they fairly included the authority to
bind the territories in all cases whatsoever; then
there was an end ofthis question, and they might
pass the provso, and regulate all their other con-
Germs at pleasure. But there were other sources
whence the rights supposed to be indirectly de-
rlved--as necessary to the exercise Of some pow
er found in the constitution, or some other pow
er found out of the constitution. After an ar
gument to show the necessity for asccrtaining
the extent of this derivative power, as claimed,
from whence it was derived, Mr.. G. reverted to
the proposition that Congress has the power of
Legislation claimed, and observed that if 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 object. If
the power s'to make needful rules and rcgula-
tions over the territory or other property of the
United States the clause most frequently re-
lied upon by the claimants of this powcr-con-
veyed full Legislative authority over this proper
ty, and over all persons living on it, thus making
man the mere incident of property, certainly nc
yer were words more unhappily chosen, nor a
reputation for clearness and certainty more un-
justly acquired. That the convention, when
they intended to convey full Legislative powers,
knew what terms to employ, was manifest from
, the phraseology Of the provision for the govern
ment of the Federal District, and of places ce-
ded, ''for the erection of forts magazines arsen-
ais, dock yards, and other needful buildings -
where the right was given in express terms, ad-
mitting no doubt, and the very words were en-
, ployed which arc best adapted to convey the
power intended to be granted, and no other pow
cr.
> When, therefore, construction was put upon
the authority to make necdful rules and regula-
tons for property, which carries it far beyond the
import of the words, those assuming it were
! bound to explain why similar language was not
used to grant similar power, and by what just
rule phrase so limited was made to convey a
power unlimited. No man had attempted to
do this, and it was an obstacle IN iminc, which,
:: till removed, was nsuperable. It was a little
curious to analyzc the different opinions of diff
ferent speakers and writer's on this subject, and
to find what diversity of sentiment prevails res
pecting the true ground of Congressional inter-
position. There seemed to be a sort of consen-
taneous admission, that the power exists but
, then came the diversity of views, when seeking
to justify its exercises by the provisions of the
, constitutional will (said MIR. c. enumerate
the most prominent of these suggestions, and
then proceed to test them by the principles of
the constitution -
L. The principal reliance, till recently, for the
supp ort OF this general power of legislation, has
been upon that clause ofthe constitution already
quoted, which authorizes Congress to edispose
of, and make all peedful rules and regulations
respecting the territory or other property belong
ing to the United States.' More recently, how
ever, as the subject has been investigated, this
clause has found less favor, and other provisions
have, in succession, been brought forward, as JUS,
tifying Congressional interposition. Among
: these are 1 .st .7'la- 81" i4 ...SGf@- =
: e. The war and treaty making power, H.'
!, g. The right to admit new States. ~ #"aia.'
: 4. The right to sell the public lands. '..9a
: g. The right of ownership. a '1a@s ~,As
g. The right or duty Of settlement. ait4
- I<xrr