Washington sentinel., 1854-05-02

1
sir, we have the fact now demonstrated on thi
floor, that, while large number of representa-
tiyes are willing to repeal the prohibition, few
Of them, if any, would vote to re-enact the ole
law.
1t is true, the Missouri prohibition operated
as a repeal upon all the laws then existing fol
the protection of slavery, but At did more; i
created perpetual barrier against similar lie
gislation in the future. 1t, therefore, would no
follow that repeal of this perpetual prohibition
necessarily showed the intention to revive laws
which existed at the time of the prohibition
and were destroyed by its influence.
While the construction of statutes at the
common law is such as | have stated, the civi
law declares that "the repeal of a repeating
statute shall not revive the former law"
will not stop to inquire whether, as it is
contended that the civil law of Louisiana now
exists in these territories, and the act Of 1926
as well as the act now proposed are territorial
acts in their operation, the construction Of the
courts would not be governed by the civil-law
rule. 1t is evident that if the same acts had
been passed by territorial legislature, in o
country where the civil law prevailed, it would
be SO. These considerations ! waive, because
a great measure oflegislation should stand upon
broader and surer grounds.
The rules of the common and civil law vary
much less than they appear to do. BY the
former, the court will give effect to the inten-
ton to revive without cypress cords; by the
latter, the Legislature must revive the old laws
by formal ye-enactnlent.
BY either rule, however, the rericor is Gre
dted by The act Of legislation, and the effect
and responsibility are precisely the same,
whether it flows from necessary implication OF
expression.
The objection, therefore, to the bill, with OF
to this--that the south should not assent to the
passage Of the measure repeating the perpetual
prohibition, and leaving to the people inhabit-
ing the Territories to pass such laws as they
may, under the Constitution, deem best, with
out our northern friends will also agree to re-
enact the black code Of Louis XIV, and all
other proslavery laws which are supposed to
have existed prior to 1920.
Sir, the south should have made her stand
in 1920, when these laws, then in full force, as
is contended, were repealed. If the south sub
mitted to 1t then, can we now demand OF north.
ern men to re-establish them? For one, / will
not, on such ground as this, reject the PROPOSE
ton rendered by brave and patriotic represen-
tatives of the north in the bill before u.s. If we
do not thereby regain all the ground we lost in
1920, we shall at least obliterate that hateful
sectional line which for thirty-four years has
festered in the wounded side Of the Consti-
tuition.
1t is to this miserable line, containing as it
does congressional imputation against the
institutions of one-half of the States, that we
owe much OF the abolition agitation in and out
Of these halls. How strongly was this describ-
ed by Mr.. jefferson a few months after the
passage of the act:
But this momentous question, like fre-bell
in the night, awakened and filled me with terror.
considered it at once as the knell Of the Union.
1t is hushed, indeed for the moments but this is a
reprleve only, moi final sentence. A geographical
tine coiaciding aci marked principle, moral and
political, once conceiUea and held 7p to the angry
passions omen, wH pever be o5literated ; and erery
aae,O irritation mil mark d deeper and deeper"
Let us, them representatives, casting from us
all minor objections firmly unite for the eradi
cation of this geographical line" SO fatal to
the harmony Of the Union, and so hostile to
the spirit Of our institutions.
Another objection, Mr.. Chairman, that has
been urged against the bill by gentlemen from
the south, is, that it recognises what is termed
"squatter sovereignty = the provision being,
that the true intent and meaning of this act
is not to legislate slavery into any Territory or
State, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave
the people thereof free to form and regulate
their domestic institutions in their own way,
subject only to the Constitution Of the United
States.
Now, it is admitted that difference Of opin-
ion exists between the different sections Of the
confederacy as to the period when the right of
the people of the Territory to act upon the
subject Of the admission or exclusion Of slavery
arises. On the one hand, it is said that this
right exists as soon as the territorial organiza-
ton takes place; on the other, i. is maintained
that it is in allegiance until the people proceed
to establish a State government.
Now, sir, the south has contended that, under
the Constitution, Congress could not prohibit
the introduction of citizens of the States with
their slave property into the Territories. If so,
Congress cannot confer q power which it does
not possess; and the same constitutional re-
striction would restrain the territorial legisla-
ture.
Wherever our territory extends, our Consti,
tuition follows and controls it. A denial Of
this involves the difficulty into which Mr.. Web
ster fell, in the celebrated colloquy with Mr..
Calhoun, in the Senate, in February, l846; for,
while he denied that the Constitution extended
over the Territories froprio rigore, he contend
ed that the power to govern the Territories
was granted in the Constitution in so many
words"
But, whatever may be the merit of that con-
troversy is not necessary determine, as the bill
before US carries the Constitution erpressly into
the Territories by leaving the people thereof
perfectly free to form and regulate their domes-
tic institutions in their own way, subject only
TO the Constitution OF the United States
Under those provisions of the Constitution
the war and treaty-making power,
believe that territory may be acquired. The
right to govern it is an incident provided for in
the clause authorizing call laws necessary and
proper for carrying into executian the forego-
ing powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the government Of the United
States, or in any department or officer thereof
When the Territory Of Louisiana was pur-
chased the proprietary interest in the soil vested
n the people Of the several States who are the |
parties to the federal compact The sovereignty
'ver the soil vested in the same hands. This
$ as evident as if the occurrence had taken
place under the articles of confederation.
The legal right to I" DISPOSE of the soil and |