Washington sentinel., 1854-06-02
i'd Others crauch ss2, decided in 1910, we

"The power OF governing and of legislating for
a territory is the inevitable consequences Of the
right acquire and 10 hold territory. Could this
position be contested, the Constitution of the Uni-
| ted States declares than Congress shall have
| power 10 dispose OF and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory or other
| property belonging 10 the United States. Accord
| ngly, we find Congress possessing and exercising
| the absolute and undisputed power OF governing
| andegisatng for the Territory OF Orleans Con-
| gress bas given them Legislative, an executive,
| and q Judiciary, with such powers as il has been
| their will TO assign 10 those departments respec-
| lively"
/ should say that the legal timidity must be
very great, which could hesitate to commit the
question Of "squatter sovereignty to tribu-
nal which had that idea of the relation between
Congress and the Territories. 1t is just, sim
ply, and absolutely impossible that the Supreme
Court can hold that n territorial legislature may
exclude us of the south with our slaves from
Nebraska and Kansas, when Congress possesses
no such power
l have no fears for the result Of the agree
ment which this bill makes upon the question
of territorial powers. I'll stand g the hazard, =
not Of ~ the die,' but Of judicial decision on
such an issue, and not only readily but ioyfulb.
My friends who differ from me, will doubt rot,
do the same. So brethren will dwell to-
gether in unity" and those who hope to intro.
duce discord among us will find that g they
reckon without their host"
Now few words as to the BADGER amend
ment | understand its intent and effect to
be at The cery .1a1thest, no more than this
a formal and emphatic declaration on the part
OF the south, that she is willing without the
| invocation of any special legislation whatever
to rest her claim to the Joint occupation of Ne.
braska and Kansas, simply and solely on the
| Constitution ba e.,
its introduction, understand to be this: after
the argument on the abrogation of the Mis-.
souri, restriction had far progressed, almost
to It's conclusion, after the friends of the
bill had appealed to the principles and
| guarantees of the Constitution, as both the
sword and shield of their argument and de-
mand, and no southern senator had ever
mtmated reliance on anything else, it was
not only suggested, but urged that, in fact,
the south meant to court the protection and
aid of the laws of France, which had existed
prior to our acquisition of louisiana The
enemies Of the bill eagerly seized upon this
weapon of assault. Some of its northern friends
were embarrassed, and disturbed What, then?
Why, the south simply said-this matter may be
settled at once, our northern friends relieved
and our northern enemies disarmed, we arc
willing to put in formal and unmistakable Ian
i
and insisted upon. Thus we yindicate our sin.
cerity and smooth the road to our great object.
If it be true (and what southerner doubts it p
that the Constitution does recognize our slave
property and. gives us equal rights in and to
the common possessions of the Union with our
| northern brethren, il we have no misgpings as
to these propositions, is not the bill as it stands
all we can desire? Even five might find some
munment of title in the old French law or any
other special enactment, why make o question
about it, if indeed the Constitution be that i'm
pregnable fortress Of our rights which we have
always claimed that it is? The bill opens its
wide gates to us. When invited within its
strong walls, why should we care for mud re-
doubts of French or Spanish, or Territorial
laws? presume there is no man who would
not prefer to hold and enjoy his property by
| virtue Of the plain provisions and lofty guaran-
tees of the Constitution Of his own Country,
| rather than resort TO intricate and doubtful dis
putations as to the resurrection OF laws which
have slumbered for q generation at least. We
all know that the Clayton compromise was sup
ported by almost the whole southern represcn-
| tationinCongress,t true-hearted, clear-headedno-
bic old John &. Calhoun at their head, when that
compromise agreed to leave to the courts the set
tlement Of the rights of the south under the
Constitution to the whole territory acquired
from Mexico with Mexican anti-savery laws
unrepealed into the bargain.
| Why Mr. Chairman, q frank and explicit
declaration in the bill, of the sincerity Of on,
, arguments and professions was becoming tc
the south. How, l beg to ask, could we re
fuse it? What do we lose byit? Is there any
man who hears me, who does not know that the
south has no protection save in the Constitu
ton or disunion. Neither French, nor Span
ish laws, nor antiquatcd territorial Legislation
which the geographical industry Of my es
tecmed colleague may show, did once, but not
now apply to q territory where there were
neither white men nor negroes will avail
They will all bend like reeds before the blast
Nothing can stand it save that "brave old
oak" OF which the Nebrask Kansas bill is n
noble scion-the Constitution. The view !
have presented is sufficient for me. Give me
the Constitution in its integrity, and purity,
and power, and | care not groat for anything
beyond it. But | will take technical view
of the subject. @.#
! My colleague, the other day in answer to q
question of the gentleman from Georgia, gave
US, with much dstinctness, his Interpretation
OF, and objection to, the BADGER amendment,
and / respectfully submit that he has en-,
tirely mistaken its import. He considers it a
/ positive declaration or enactment on the part OF
this Congress, that there shall be no revival Of
any law relating to slavery which may have cx.
listed in the Territory which we propose to or
ganize under the governments.of Nebraska and
Kansas. Now, the bill says no such thing. 1t
only provides, That nothing herein contained
shall be construed to revive or put in force any
law or regulation which may have existed prior
to the act Of sixth Of March, eighteen hundred
and twenty, either protecting, establishing, pro-
hibiting, or abolishing slavery" In other words,
not that the laws in question shall not be re-
| vived, but simply that we do not undertake to
revive them. Any force which may be inhe.
rent in them, is left unimpaired and untouched.
If they come into being aiiundc the bill, well
and good. There is nothing to interfere with
them. We only agree that we will not con.
strue the ncgation Of prohibition into the
affirmation Of protection. We do not say that
the laws in question shall not live again or do
not now live, but we say that, living or dead,
this bill does not destroy them; it only does not
rc-enact them.
Congress does not propose now to disturb
them. ! can but think that perhaps the diff
ference between my colleague and myself as
| to the Badger amendment, may be traced to
| d;fferanna IN ot,r yipws nc tn tho MicSauri ra.