Washington sentinel., 1854-03-01

\
should be all distributed among the non-save-
holding States, and that the slaveholding States
should get none of it, would not the sense of
justice in every breast revolt at it? But is it
not far worse to say the whole uses and benefits
to be derived from its occupation shall be re-
served to the non-slaveholding States, and that
the slaveholding States are to get none of them?
Suppose there was positive enactment that
these lands might be settled by citizens of Mas
sachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Con-
necticut, but that they should not be settled by
citizens of Virginia and South Carolina, and
other slave States, would not everybody see that
it was unconstitutional-tha it was violating
the spirit of the Constitution? Why? Because
it would impair the equality of the States
Will it not be accomplishing the same thing
indirectly TO say that those who are not slave.
owners shall go there, but the STAKEHOLDER shall
not2 Does it not accomplish precisely the
same thing, except that the one is done direct
ly and the other indirectly?
But, Mr. President, know that this is q
view which is so obvious as to be sought to be
evaded upon the ground that the Constitution
| Of the United States, which, by implication,
prescribes this equality of the States, does not
apply to the Territories of the United States !;
and we have authority as eminent as that OF
| Daniel Webster for the assertion. He seems,
| as far as I can trace his opinion in the examl
| nation of the debate, to have derived it from Il
Single dictum of Chief Justice Marshall, in
Canter's case, and to have rested it upon the
| fact that it has been decided that Judges might
| be appointed for the Territories tor a term OF
four years without violation OF the Consti
tuition. Sir, think can show that such de
cision was not inconsistent with the opinion
that the Constitution did apply to the Terrific
ries; that there were difficulties in supposing
that it did not apply to the Territories, which
Mr.. Webster himself did not meet; and that the
Supreme Court have, in series of cases, de
cided that the Constitution and laws OF thu
United States did cover the Territories of the
United States.
Sir when the advocates of this doctrine
have been pressed as to the power OF Congress
to do within the Territories what it is prohibit
ed by the Constitution from doing at all, sucl
as to establish religion, &C., none OF them have
pretended to say it could do any of these things.
When it was asked how, if the Constitution did
not 90 there, the government went there, which
is the creature of the Constitution, nobody, not
even the intellect of Webster, could present
sufficient answer; and the only ground upon
which it must rest was this decision OF the
courts in regard to the territorial Judges,
which, seeming to be inconsistent with the
Constitution, gave rise to the inference that IN
the contemplation of the court the Constitution
itself did not extend to these Territories !
can show, think, not only that the Supreme
Court has repeatedly decided that the Constitu-
ton extends to the Territories, but that the de-
csion in regard to the territorial judges is quite
consistent with that supposition. In the case
of Loughborough Us. Blake, (5 Wheaton, 3l7.l
Judge Marshall, in delivering the opinion OF the
court, decides that the power to lay taxes, du-
{ es, imposts, and excises extends to the Terri
tories as well as to the States. Speaking of
| the provision that !" all duties, imports, and
| excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States" he says:
"It will not be contended that the modification
of the power extends 10 places TO 'chich he pooe,
ITSELF does not eatend The power, then, TO lay and
collect dnties imposts, and excises, may be exer
cised and must be exercised throughoutth the United
States. Does this term designate the whole, or
any particular portion of the American empire
Certainly this question can admit OF but one an
swer. II is the name given 10 our great republic,
which is composed of States and Territories"
He decides, it is true that Congress is not
required by the Constitution to lay direct taxes
upon the Territories, when they are imposed
upon the States. But he distinctly declares
that when laid, they must be imposed accord
ing to the rule of the Constitution.
In Canter's case Il Peters, 8, 5l1) Judge
Marshall again delivered the opinion of the
court and said that
"Florlda was governed by virtue of that clause
in the Constitution which empowers Congress TO
make all needful rules and regulations respecting
The Territory and other property of the United
States"
Again, he says:
"fhe right to govern maybe the inevitable con-
sequence Of the right TO acquire Territory. Which
ever may be the source whence the power Is de-
rived, the possession of it is unquestionaoie.
It was in this case that he decided in favor
of the validity of the act of the Territorial
legislature, creating judges for term OF four
years; and he did il, not upon the ground that
the Constitution did not apply to Florida in its
territorial condition, but because these courts
were not constitutional" but Legislative
courts The decision was, that the provision
in the Constitution in regard to the judicial
power did not extend to the territorial judges,
Not because Congress exercised power IN the
Territories independently of the Constitution,
but because that instrument gave Congress
power by one measure in the States, and |
another in the Territories. According 10 Judge |
Marshall, Congress, in legislating Tor the Ter
r;tories. aexercises the combined powers OF the
General and State government" IL was IN
This latter capacity that these territorial Judges
were created, and it was in this point OF view
that the law creating them was neiu vaiiu.
In decisions since that time, the Supreme
Court has more than once decided that the
Constitution extends to the Territories.
In the case Of Pollard's lessee against Hagan'
q Howard, 2l2,) Mr.. Justice Mckinley, in de-
liyering the opinion of the court, said;
Everv constitutional act Of Congress is passed
hv The will Of the people of the United States, ex-
messed through their representatives on the sub
pc, matter ofihe enactment and, when so passed. |
I, becomes the supreme law of the land, and ope-
ra,es by lis own force on the subject-matter in |
whatever State or Territory it may happen to be"
Again he says, Up. 225:)
aEyery nation acquiring territory, by treaty or |
otherwise must hold il subject TO the Constitution
and laws Of it's own government, and not accord
ing 10 those of the government ceding it.-panels
Le,c of Nations D. l., eh. 10, s. 2lo 24i 245; and
B. 2, C. 7, $. so.
In Strade ct al. rs. Graham, (l0 Howard, p:
s2,) Judge Taney, in delivering the opinion OF
the court, says:
aThe Constitution was, in the language OF the
ordinance, adopted by common consent, and the