The daily union., 1854-02-16

tue ucSelou oi TUG poo-
pie Ia then State sovereignty and there may be pro-
pHetyhere certainly is impropreiyn excluding the
exercise OF any power ia The territorial government for
the establishment or exercise OF slavery" And again
"li is duty maintain them in that state until they
grow into ssicen importance in point OF population 10
be admitted into ihe Union as State upon the foot
ing with the original States. Here using the language
OF the original acts OF Congress we have so often
peated, while he $50 unlike bs usual prompiness and de-
csion cautiously presumes there may proprey the
exercise OF this power by Congress in Territory and
this opinion was given in the height OF that popular
hdenee he largely enjoyed, and in the full ygor OF
his intellect.
We might refer also to the sentiments of the late Chie
Justice Kent who, about the year 1870, when writing
on this distinction, which is evidently marked by the
constitution, and with the then far distant expectation OF
the present rapid progress of western settlement in the
valley of Columbia and Oregon, he deprecaes the state
OF absolute sovereignty the hand, and OF abso
lutte dependence the other, in territorial condition,
as not congensl with the free and independent spirit
OF our national institutions" and productive of the
wors, of consequences.
We have thus given OF the ables authorities for
correct view OF the power of Congress TO pass laws
for Territories and nowhere find any dis,in-
guished man of the age who has yenured 10 extend il
beyond the limit we have assumed.
II was insisted by the learned Judge and his elo-
qusnt colleague that this compromise act OF 1920 was
a contract 10 be regarded "not less solemny bind
ing than treaty between foreign nations'in the pthy
language OF The astnamed gentleman, while the sun
shall shne" or forever. We do not care TO direct them
10 authorities for familiar principle to the qualified
meaning OF word which, standing by itself, gives not
TO grantee OF land than life estate, but deter
mines this sempiienal endurance OF an imposition by
Congress in more practical manner. This compact as
they term it, they hsorify having been made thirty
three years ago, under which the eemen OF the North
allowed the State of Missouri 10 be received into The
Union with slavery lis institutions, and that the infringe
OF this compact made in the words of the conclu.
sion OF the fourteenth section OF the Nebraska bill
amended BY the following words: "That the conslu-
ton OF the United States whch is not locally inappca
BILE, have the force and effect within the said
Territory OF Nebraska elsewhere within the United
Saes except the eighth section OF the act preparatory to
the admission OF Missouri into the Union, approved
March 6. 1890. which, being inconsistent with the prn
ciples OF the legislation OF 1850, commonly called the
compromise measures, is hereby declared imperative
and void"
We see nothing in this but the making more emphat,
and ineligible wha, could have been done by fewe
words (but which nigh, have left much to the conjec
lures of those who disposed TO cavil at anything,
and precluding. by expression the panest terms
all future false constructions. The Compromise OF 1921
carries on the face of il nothing than plain sgs
lalive act, withou, reference, unquafedy admitting th
State of Missouri into the Union with like privileges
other Staes-the only condition that was imposed being
accepted with protest by that State against the right
Congress impose any condition whatever. (See act b,
Missouri June %, is2l) This condition was that ont
the articles OF her constitution should not be construed
to authorize law excluding citizens OF the United State
from constitutional privileges and they merely consenlet
to that condition because would dvest any person
or change The duties OF any of their constituted auhori
ties, or impair their rights. There those who do no
deny the unconslluonaly Of the OF lsao. but nsis
upon an adherence compact from of hon
Or having been the Of alayng The stormy ag,a
ton OF that period, and matter of exgency OF press
ng necessity This indeed the only ground upon which
il can be placed since word is conlaaed herein which
refers 10 their existing difficulties, nor 10 any such unset
tied state OF feeling called for the compromise esolu
tons of 1885, and by its plain, explicit language has
perseded rendered imperative, If il had any sub
s,antive merit for in The preamble of those resolutions
:
eues. and therefore obva,ed the necessity Of any de
bate upon the proprety improperly OF any prio
statute That should have been passed oppo
siton the pledge contained the treaty OF France,
the repeated OF Congress Territories and State.
formed ihererom in conformity to it, AS evidence
of the rights derivabe from that treaty, the Hon. Rufu
King, an-slavery man, in 1920 admitted that ther,
want OF precision in the language of that treaty
as 10 the application OF the words rights and immun
es--wheheI they had reference federal or Siai
rights and that the power of Congress of excluding
slavery from States northwest OF the Ohio suspend
ed in respect TO States that formed in Louisiana.
We here assume the position, that If the statute o
1890 is Constitutional, il is yet liable 10 a repeal by AM
subsequent legisatur"a principles. says Marshall,
j. not be conlroverted, only in act be don,
under law, in the case OF property conveyed ant
vested under H." (See Flecher Peck, Cranoh Rep
What, thsn we ask, has been done with respect h,
I matter in question TO prevent repeala But h'
i Compromise OF 1870 be considered having priority il
time TO prevent its being superseded by that of 1850
Then give you Older pledges, and with much less
implication, in the early acts of Congress, many year
prcvousa pledge the surrender Of the Territories b,
the States and by the ordinance OF 49, that they shou
be admitted equal footing with the original States
And if you say that all this had application TO the egor