The Camden weekly journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1853-1861, 1854-06-13
Nuinal,,
SPEECH OF HON. w. W.. Royce,

--,OF SOUTH CAROLiNA,
In the House of Representatives, May 20, 1S-
Sd. The House being in the Committee Of
the Whole on the state of the Union ::
Nh. BoYcE said Il propose to make some
remarks on the Kansas and Nebraska bill. The
important feature of this bill is a repeal Of the
Missouri restriction. Iapprove of this repeaI,
for l consider this restriction. unconstitutional
and unjust. The authority thus to restrict
slavery is attempted TO be derived from two
sources: First, under the clause authorizing
Congress "to, dispose of and make all neediul
rules and regulations respecting the territory
or other property belonging to the United
States;" and, second, as an incident to the
treaty.making power. --.
In reference to the first source, insist with
entire confidence that the clause is not in the
slightest degree altered by the insertion: Of the
word territory, and that the power conferred
would be precisely the same if the words "ter-
ritoEy and other" were stricken out, and the
clause made TO read thus: The Congress shall
have power to dispose Of and make all needtul
rules and regulations respecting the ---
property belonging to the United States )"
property being comprehensive word, which
embraces /" territory" as one of it's Species
That am correct in this construction is appa-
rent from the clause ITSELF which says "terri.
tory or other property" evidently treating ter
ritory as one kind Of property. To make the
matter still palmer, suppose the clause were:
"The Congress shall have power to dispose Of
and make all needfll rules and regulations re-
specting the ships of war, guns, cannon. and
other property belonging to the United States"
Would the insertion Of the words "ships Of
war, guns, cannons," give any more authority
than the single word propertys Certainly not.
If am right in this construction, it follows
that the only authority conferred upon Con-
gress by this clause over the territory is in their
character Of ownership, and with reference to
it as property. In other words the power Of
Congress over the territory under this clause is
property power, the same power which eve
ry individual has over his own estate-simply
this and no more.
Now, what is the extent of this power Of
ownershipa The answer to this question is at
once suggested by considering the nature Of
property. Property has but two characters
tcs-to be used, and to be disposed Of The
owner Of property can do but two things with
his property-use it, or dispose of it. Con-
gress from the very words Of the Constitution,
and the very nature Of things, can only exer.
else one right that of disposing of the terrific.
ry; to use it, is simply absurd. The whole
right of Congress is limited to the one right of
disposing of the territory. The whole power
of Congress over the territory hath this extent,
no more. Congress has the power to dispose
of the territory, and to make all reedful rules
and regulations to effect this purpose. Those
who claim that this clause authorizes the pro-
hibition of slavery in the Territories, must
show that such prohibition is NECESSARY means
to the disposing of the territory but appre.
hend no one will attempt so absurd task
Indeed, the contrary is evident from the slight.
est reflection; for Congress, though owner of
the territory, is only so as trustee for the States,
and in disposing, or, which is the same thing,
selling the territory, is bound by every con-
ceivable ust.obligation to thus dispose of or
sell to the best advantage, which implies any
thing else but restricting the sale of the terri
tory to those who are not shareholders, but
looks to the largest competition of settlers,
whether from the North or the South.
think this portion Of the argument is sufi-
ciently clear already; but, while upon this
point, it may not be inappropriate to show that
the Constitution itself distinguishes between
this property power over the territory to which
have been aludng and a more comprehen-
sive governmental power; for, in another clause
p of the Constitution, a governmental power, un
der the terms exclusive legislation" is con-
ferred upon Congress over the seat of the
Government, forts arsepals," &C.; the trainers
of the Constitution thus showing their concep.
ton of the difference in the nature of the pow
ers conferred by the two sections. When they
speak in regard to the territory, they use very
guarded language; when they provide for the
seat of Government, they use the strong terms
"exclusive {" legislation"
Twill now proceed to the other source. from
which the power to prohibit slavery in the
Territories is derived, as an incident to the
treaty making power. Assuming our right to
acquire territory, it is insisted the right to gov
ern it follows as necessary consequence.
Admitting wo have the right to govern the
Territory, is this an unlimited power OF gov
ernment or not? Undoubtedly there are ex
press limitations and implied ones. The Ter:
ritory of Louisiana was ceded to the United
States. What are the United States?
Union of equal States. The equality of the
States is the foundation of the Union; the
Government rests on this theory The Federal
Government, as the agent of the States in gov
erning the Territories, is bound to regard this
principle of equality it cannot disregard it
without gross violation of its trusts. The
prohibition of slavery does violate this priuci
pie of equality it is therefore in violation of
the implied limitations on the governmental
power Of Congress over the Territories. Again