The Lancaster ledger. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1852-1905, 1854-06-21

NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.
SPEECH OF W. W. B0YCE.
OF south Carolina.
In the House Of Representatives, Nav 90, "a

Inc HOuse being in the Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union
Mr.. BOYCE said:
MIR. CHAIRMAN: propose to make some
remarks on the Kansas and Nebraska bill.
The important feature of this bill is re-
peal of the Missouri restriction. approve
of this repeal, for 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 necdful rules and regulations
respecting the territory, or other property
belonging to the United Statcs;" and, Sc
cond, rs an incident TO the tre,ty making
power.
In reference to the first source, insist
with entire confidence that the clause is not
in the slightest degree altered by the inser-
ton of the ward territory and, and that the
power conferred would be precisely the same
ifihe words "territory and other" were strick-
en- out, and the clause made to read thus The
Congress shall have power to dispose of
and make all needful rules and regulations
respecting, the - property belonging to
the United States; property being CON-
prehcnsive word which embraces ~territory"
as one of its species. That am correct in
this construction is apparent in the clause
itself, which says. "territory or other pro-
perty," evidently treating territory rs one
kind Of property. TO make the matter still
palmer, suppose the clause were; "Thc
Congress shall have power to dispose of,
and make all needful rules and regulations,
respecting the ships of war, guns, cannons
and other property belonging to the United
States. Would the insertion of the words
ships-ofwar, guns, cannons," give any
more authority than the single word proper
ty! Certainly not. If am right in this
constitution, 1t follows that the only author
ty conferred upon Congress by this clause
over the territory, is in their character of
ownership, and with reference to it a. pro-
perty. In other words, the power Of Con-
gress over the territory under this clause is
property power, the same power which
simply this, and no more.
Now, what is the extent Of this power of
ownership! The answer to this question
is at once suggested by considering the ma
ture of property. Property has but two
characteristics-to be used, and to be dis
posed of. The owner Of property can do
but two things with his property-use it,
or dispose of it. Congress, frcm the very
words Of the Constitution, and the very ma
ture of things, can only exercise one right
that 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 needful rules and regulations
to effect this purpose. Those who claim
that this clause authorizes the prohibition
Of slavery in the territories. must show that
such prohi .ition is a necessary means to the
disposing of the territory; but apprehend
no one would attempt so absurd task
Indeed the contrary is evident from the
slightest reflection; for Congress, though
owner of the territory, is only so as trus-
tee for the States; and in disp osing, or,
which is the same thing, selling the territory,
is bound, by every conceivable trust, obli-
cation to thus dispose Of or sell to the best
advantage, which implies any thing else
but restricting the sale Of the territory to
those who are not slave holders, but looks
to the largest competition of settlers, wheth-
er from the North or the South.
think this portion of the argument is
sufficiently clear already; but, while upon
this point, it may not be inappropriate to
show that the congtitution itself distinguish.
etweeu this property power over the ter
htory to which have been alluding, and
q more comprehensive governmental power; |;
for in apother clause of the Constitution,
governmental power, under the terms
exclusive ligislation,' is conferred upon
Congress "over the seat of the Government ,
forts, arsona's," &c, the trainers of the
Constitution thus showing their conception
Of the difference in the nature Of the powers
conferred by the two sections. When they
speak m regard to territory, they use very
guarded language; when they provide for
the seat Of Government, they use the strong
terms " exclusive legislation"
will now proceed to the other source,
from which the power 10 prohibit slavery in
the Territories is derived. as an incident TO
tie treaty.makinO poweF Assuming oar
right TO acquire territory, II Is insisted the
right to govern Il follows as a necessary
consequence. Admitting we have the right
70 govern the Territory, Is this m unlimited
power Of government or mott Undoubted.
" there are express limitations and implied
ones. The territory Of Louisiana was ceded
to the United States. What are The United