Des Moines courier. ([Ottumwa] Iowa) 1848-1854, 1854-02-23
THE DIES MONIES COURIER.
The Position of Senator Douglas.

1
duced by Senator Douglas. and his views
upon it, have created such universal sur
prise; the fact that the friends Of the
compromise measures Of 1850, through
the country, are now protesting againsl
his forced construction OF that compro.
mise the fac, tina, threeyears elapsed be
fore this construction was announced To
the people; the fact that intelligent men
every where knew nothing of the reason
for this construction until the appearance
of his recent speech: the fact that only
nine months ago it was asserted in the
Senate, by Senator Atchison in the
hearing OF Senator Dpuglas,) withou,
contradiction or dispute, that the Nilsson.
RI compromise was no. repealed. and, in
his opinion. could not be repealed; these
facts, as we comprehend them, show eth
er false dealing, or that the mass of the
people are too ignorant and benighted
TO have any correct opinions whatever Of
right or wrong in legislaIon-are utterly
incapable of passing judgement upon
public measures, their designs and con.
sequences. .-..
According to our understanding, an &c,
Of Congress may adopt one principle in
disposing of territory acquired from
France, and auo:hcr &C: CT Congress
NAV adop, one principle in disposing OF
territory acquired from Mexico. Ger
,ainly. the principei of the latter &C,
cannot supersede the former aci, there
being no contllct--one act applying to
one territory exclusively, and the other
act 10 other territory exclusively; and
neither art can be superseded or repeal
ed except by subsequent act in ex-
press words, or subsequent act incon.
sistent with the former, relative TO the
sane territory. The two compromise
acts were totally disconnected, not appli.
cable to the same territory. and. there
fore no: conflicting. Whether either or
both acts were constitutional. is another
question; and whether it was proper that
the two acts should diler in principle, if
they co, is also another question:
When an act of Congress makes use OF
geographical lines, the common idea is
that preference is had to a portion of the
earth s surface. and that any principle
connected with the provisions Of The &C,
has legal existence beyond The prescrIb
ed boundaries by virtue of the aci, al,ho'
it may have a moral existence every.
where. let rs suppose an act of Con
gross 10 proviie-"Ihat in all that terri
tory herein specified, the crimes Of Muir
der and Arson shall be punishable with
death; and lie, us suppose sutsequen,
act OF Congress TO provide that in the
territory herein specified Capt. tai pun.
ishment shall be, and is hereby forever
prohibited" Now, if the territory, if
the geographical lines were the same in
both acts, the latter &C, would undoubt.
eddy supersde the former, or. il the two
acts related TO different territories, and
the latter embraced a portion of the ter.
rl,ory specified in the former, the former
ae. would be superseded by the latter
act, wifhin that portion, and the remain.
der of The territory specified in the form
er act would stand or continue unatfect.
ed by the latter act. But if The two ter.
ritofies we're entirely separate and dis,
tinc,, lhe two acts would stand independ.
eDtly-one operating in one territory
upon one principle, The other operating
In one territory upon another or different
principle. To say tina, the PRINCIPLE
involved in the prohibition of capital
punishment in one territory, should su-
persede the provisions OF previous act
prescribing death as the punishment of
murder and arson in another territory.
would be to assume the ground now oc
cupied by Senator Douglas upon the
compromise measures. In the case sup.
pose we say nothing about the cons,i-
tutionalitv Of either act, or of the expe.
Giency of forever enforcing or prohibit.
ing capital punishment, within the terri.
tories, instead Of leaving the question to
be settled by the Inhabitants. Our OBJ.
jec; is simply to illustrate the idea OF
Senator Douglas, by which the PRINcI.
PIE Of one act OF Congress overleaps
geographical lines and supersedes the
express provisions OF former act, op-
Grating without lines. Ii strikes US tina
Senator Douglas should no longer snuJ
| VIC l1tkuCI law OCHdtOIS. 81 any
thing. they have the advantage. for they
would ride over human laws on Di.
vine principle. while he attempts the
same fea. on new principle Of con-
struction only, Assuredly, if he is no,
a full disciple of The Higher Law school
(which we will not contend for he has
certainly caught many OF the gfaces and
con.rivances Of that school. Was i; moi
"prophetic of the event" when Senator
Douglas, in 1851, foretold the attempt
that i. would "be looked upon az po.
li.ical movement for ambitious 2urpos.
esq"
i Has the PRINCIPLE involved in Sena.
tor Foot's case beer SUPERSEDED! Sena'
tor Douglas did no. think Foot's FINAL
ITY resolutions necessary-.houghs thai
they would not add any "new torce OF
validity TO the compromise measures
But he n0w attempts 10 overload the Ne.
braska bill with a FINALITY declaration
As he said TO Mr.. Foo,'s case, '.are no
the friends TO the compromise becoming
the agitators!" If the Missouri com
promise was SUPERSEDED, what goo(
can the passage Of that declaration ac'
complish!
N u Il 4 4