Washington sentinel., 1854-05-05


souri,. That bill went to the Senate, and, in |
lieu of the bill from the House, that body pass
ed the Missouri restriction, which, as before
shown. excluded slavery from all the Louisiana
territory north of 36o 3V north latitude, not in
cluded within the limits of the State OF Mis-
souri. In this shape the bill was sent back to
the House, and was passed by the aid OF south
ern votes, who preferred it as the least of two
evils, and because they were forced to take this
or the abolition of slavery in the State OF Mis-.
souri,. But sir, it was not upon the passage OF
this bill that bonfres were lighted up and bells
rung in every section of the Union TO manifest
the Joy Of the people, referred to by the gentle
man from Illinois, Mr.. YATES, but it was
upon upon the passage of the Clay compromise s et Of
1921, which was the closing scene OF the great
drama enacted upon the Missouri question.
This brings me to the discussion of the sec-
ond objection, which is confined to what has
been termed the Badger proviso, and which IS
as follows:
8. .Prorided, That nothing herein contained shall
be construed to revive or put in force any law or
regulation which may have existed IN the lerrl' a
tory prior TO the act of the Oth OF March, i9-V'
either protecting establishing prohibiting or apoi-
ishing slavery
This proviso does not propose to repeal any
law which now exists in that Territory, or which
did exist prior to 1920, either protecting or
establishing slavery it only prevents the re-
vival of any law which was repealed by the Mis-
souri, restriction. To revive q law, presupposes
that it had been repealed; and to repeal law,
requires the exercise of legislative authority
within the powers granted to it by the Consti-
tuition The gentleman from Virginia Mr..
MILLsoNl has entertained the House with
learned but technical legal argument, to show
a radical difference in principle between the
two bills for the organization of governments
in these Teritories-an argument which would
have been more appropriate in court Of COM
mon law, in the days of Lord Coke, than in the
discussion of great national question upon
the floor of the American Congress.
Having stated the true intent and meaning Of
this proviso, the first question that arises upon
it is, what effect does it have upon the law
which existed in the Territory prior to 1920 !?
The gentleman from Virginia Mr.. MILLsoN
and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.. FRANK
LIN, declined a discussion of the doctrine of
the effect of the repeal of a repeating statute.
And well might they have avoided this for an
investigation of that subject, and a statement
of its true principles, would have destroyed the
force of the very able arguments made by both
those gentlemen to show the character impart-
ed to the bill by the proviso to its fourteenth
section. What is that principle? | read from
Blackstone's Commentaries, page 80:
If statute that repeals another is tselfrepealed
afterwards, the first statute IS hereby revived with
out any formal words for that purpose"
This, sir, is the text of the principle, and is
founded on case in II Coke and Inst.
The principle here stated has, however, under
gone adjudication; and the doctrine now held
on this subject, both in England and America,
was concisely stated by Chief Justice Best in
the case of Tattle rs. Grimwood, (3 Bing. Rep,
496,) as follows:
1T is an undoubted rule OF law, that if an act
of Parliament which repeals former statutes be
repealed by an act which contains nothing in il
that maniests the intention of the legislature that
the former laws shall continue repealed the for
mer laws will, by implication, be revived by the
repeal OF the repeating statute"
From these authorities it will be seen that
the repeal of repeating statute revives the
former law, unless it be manifested in the act
of legislation that it shall not have that effect
Now, call the attention of the committee to
the following language of the fourteenth sec
ton:
:" Ii being the true intent and meaning of this
act not 10 egisate slavery into any Territory or
State, nor 10 exclude it therefrom, but 10 leave
the people thereof perfectly free to form and regu
late their domestic institutions in their own way,
subject only TO the Constitution, Of the United
States"
Here, sir, is clear and unequivocal express
sion of the intention of the legislature and
that intention, as here manifested is wholly in
consistent with the revival of any law in the
Territory which had been properly repealed
establishing slavery And here it may be
asked, what laws existed in the Territory prior
to 1920 either protecting or establishing
slavery, and what laws were repealed by the
Missouri restriction? ! shall not go back to
inquire into the Spanish law, and French law,
in relation to this institution, which existed in
the Territory prior to the treaty Of cession in
1903. / apprehend that no law can be found,
either of French or Spanish origin, establish
ing slavery in the Louisiana Territory. Slaves
were taken into that Territory, as they were
brought into all the colonies which made the
original thirteen States of this Union, by virtue
of the countenance given to the slave.trade by
the governments OF Great Britain, France,
and Spain. And it existed there, as it did
here, by virtue of that principle which has
been recognised throughout the civilized world;
that an all governments IN achich the municipal
regulations are not absolutely opposed 10 slare'y,
persons reduced to that state may he held an IT..
This principle was expressly decided by the
supreme court of Louisiana, in which the court
says:
"It may be laid down as a legal axiom, that, in
all governments in which the municipal regula-
tions not absolutely opposed 10 slavery, per-
reduced TO that state may be held in ill.,
There were laws, however, existing in that
Territory which recognised the existence of
slavery. There were not only the French and
Spanish laws, but the laws of Congress, of the
territorial Legislature of Missouri, and of In
diana, referred to by the gentleman from Vir-
ginia, Mr.. MILLsoN But these laws did not
establish slavery; they only recognised its ex-
istence by providing for its domestic regulation,
and the distribution Of slaves, in kind, in cases
Of intestates. The question then arises, were
these laws repealed by the Missouri restriction?
Sir, i have already shown that the eighth sec
tion of the act of the 9th March, 1920, was
unconstitutional and void; and if So it could
have no effect upon any law or regulation, po-
litical or municipal, which existed in the Ter
ritory prior to its passage. An unconstitu
tional law cannot repeal one which is constitu
tional, nor can it suspend its operation. 1t il
useless for me to cite authority to show that {
law passed in violation of the Constitution il
void, and stands upon the statute-book as NJ