The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-04-16

CII1 "
domain the United States stipulation would have
been void and imperative because the United States have
constitutional capacity exercise municipal jurisdiction
ereignty, eminent domain within the limits State
elsewhere except In the in which il is expressly
granted"
And, again, he says that
The right Alabama and every other new State 10 exer
else all the powers OF government which belong TO- and may
be exercised by the original States OF the unon must be adj
mted and remain unquesoned, except far they
temporarily deprived Of the control the public lands
The principle was also decided in the of Per-
moli the First Municipality, 6 Howards Reports p
5s9,) in which the court says:
For this provision [of the ordnancol claimed the
the city ordinances above have violated and what the
force Of the ordinance north Of the Ohio do not pretend
10 1t for the purposes OF this But
regards the State Of Louisiana il had further force,
after the adoption Of the State constitution Than other acts
Orleans and standing in connexion with the ordinance
lTsI II il not possible TO maintain that the United States
hold in trust by force OF the ordinance for the people Of
Louisiana, all the great elemental principles, Of
them contained in the ordinance and secured to the people
Of the Orleans Territory during its existence
And again in the case of Strader Graham, 10 How
ards Reports page 50 in which Chief Justice Taney de-
vercd the opinion Of the court and in which he declared
that the ordinance Of 1887 ceased be in force upon the
adoption Of the constitution and referring to Of its
provisions says;
If they could be regarded operation in the States
formed within the limits Of the Northwestern Territory, it
would place them in an inferior condition as compared with
other States and subject their domestic institutions and
ncpa regulations TO the supervision and control OF tins
court"
These decisions establish the point that the imposition Of
any such restriction that imposed the Louisiana ter
rtory by the eighth section of the of the 9th of March
1920 Unconstitutional and void IT. then, it was uncon
sttona the is repealed better for the peace
the quiet and the harmony OF the country
But sir in order TO bolster up this Missouri restriction
Of 1920 and TO invoke for its maintenance the power and
influence of the OF Henry Clay il has been contounded
with the Missouri Compromise Of 1921, which is rs fol-
lows:
Resolution providing for the admission Of Missouri into the
Union, a certain condition. s&.
Resolved by The and House Of Representative Of The
United States Of Amer,ea N Congress assembled That Mis-
souri, shall be admitted into the Union equal footing
fundamental condition that fourth Of the twenty
sixth section Of the third article Of the constitution submitted
the part Of the said State to Congress- shall be con-
rued to authorize the passage of law and that law
shall be passed in conformity thereto BY which citizen of
either Of the States this Union shall be excluded from the
enjoy of any Of the privileges and mmunities to which
such citizen entitled under the constitution Of the United
States Pyoed That the legislature of the said state by
solemn public shall declare the assent of the said State to
the said fundamental condition. and transmit the President
of the United States before the fourth Monday in No
eep whereof the Presdsnt B ha announce
the fact whereupon and without further proceeding
the part of Congress- the admission of the sad State into this
joHS W. TAYLOR,
Speaker of the House Of ReJpresentatives.
Speaker of the Senate pro temporc.
Approved March 2, 1921 .
OF this Compromise Mr. Clay was the author, and of
gone other relating the admission of Missouri into The
Onion. This was compact between the general govern
ment and the people Of the Missouri Territory. 1t
contract into which the State of Missouri was forced in
ase G @ % aei1 on Se part Of the goyhmsnt % %
furnish the best evidence to the people that the only safe
guard for republican institutions in the sovereignty
OF the States as guaranteed by the constitution 1t is
uaXe
ton il did not originate in the House OF which
he was member The House Of Representatives, had
passed bill abolishing slavery IN the State OF Missouri
That bill went TO the Senate and, in lieu Of the b oin
the House that body passed the Missouri restriction which
as before shown excluded slavery from all the Louisiana
territory north of 36e 30> north latitude not included
within the limits of the Stale Of Missouri In this shape
the bin was sent back the House and passed BY the
aid southern votes who preferred il as the least OF two
tion of slavery in the State Of Missouri But sir it was
not upon the passage Of this bill that bonres were lighted
up and bells rung in every section Of the Union to mani
fest the 10Y of the people referred 10 by the gentleman from
Illinois Ir YArls1 but II was upon the passage Of the
CLAY Compromise Of 1921 which the closing Of
the great drama enacted upon the Missouri question
This brings to the discussion Of the second objection
which confined what has been termed the Badger
yiso and which Is as follows:
prorided That nothing herein contained shall be con-
1eS S.y 70 re NS II Il @ cporT prior 10 he act Of the 9Th
Of March 1920 either protecting establishing prohibiting
or abolishing slavery
This does not propose ffped law Nlllt
now exists IN that Territory which did exist prior TO
1920 either protecting establishing slavery il only pre-
vents the revival OF any law which repeated by the
Missouri restriction To revive law prcsupposes that II
had been repealed aud repeal law, requires the
else Of legislative authority within the powers granted 70
Il by the constitution The gentleman from Virginia Mr.
MnLsos has entertained the House with learned, but
technical legal argument 20 show radical difference IN
principle between the two bills for the organization of gov
crnincnts in these Tcrrorcs--au argument which would
have been more appropriate in court Of law IN
the days Of Lord Coke than In the discussion Of great
national question upon the floor Of the American Con-
gress,
Having stated the true intent and meaning Of this pro-
yiso the first question that arises upon Il Is What effect
it upon the law which existed in the Territory
prior to 1920 The gentleman from Virginia Mr. Mil
soS and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.. FRASKlS,
declined discussion Of the doctrine q the eject Of the re-
peal Of repeating statute And we'll might they have
avoided THE; for investigation Of that subject and
statement Of ts true principles would have destroyed the
force 0f the ycry able arguments made b. both those gem
tlemen show the character impaired 10 the bill by the
proyiso to i fourteenth section. What Is that principle
4 read from Bac<stoncs Commentaries page 30
"f statute that rcpca another i itself repealed after
wards the first statute hereby revived without any formal
words for that purpose.
This sir is the text Of the principle and Is founded
case ia ~ Coke and Inst The principle here stated has
however undergone adjudication and the doctrine now
held ou this subject both in England and america wa
concistly stated by Chief Justice Best in the Of Tat,
v Grimuood, (3 Bine, Rep 496, as follows;
at i an undoubtcd rule of law that II net of Paria
ment which repcas former statutes be repealed by
which contains nothing in that nanifes the intention
the legislature that the former laws sha continue repealed
the former laws WILL by implication, be revived by the rc