Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-22
DAILY NATIONAL ERA.

4 IL
with no foothold anywhere on the nation
al territory, is now exalted as national
and all our broad domain is
threatened by its blighting shadow.
Thus much for what have to say, at
this time, Of the original policy, conse-
Grated by the lives, opinions, and acts of
our Fathers. Summoning to my side
the majestic forms Of these civil heroes,
whose 6rmness in council was only
equalled by the frmness Of Washington
in war, might leave the cause in their
care. But certain reasons are adduced
for the proposed departure from their
great example, and, though these seem Of
little validity, yet would not pass them
in silence.
The Prohibition Of Slavery in the Terri
tories is assailed, as beyond the power Of
Congress, and an infringement Of the To-
cal sovereignty. On this account it IL,
at this late day, pronounced unconstitu-
tional. Now, without considering mi
nutely the sources from which the power
Of Congress over the national domain is
derived--whether from the express grant
in the Constitution to make rules and
regulations for the government Of the
Territory, or from the power, necessarily
implied, to govern territory acquired by
conquest or purchase--it seems to me
impossible to deny its existence, without
invalidating large portion OF the legisla-
ton Of the country, from the adoption of
the Constitution down to the present day.
This power was asserted before the Con-
stitution. II was not denied Or prohibited
by the Constitution itself Il has been
exercised from the first existence Of the
Government, and has been recognised by
its three departments--the Executive, the
Legislative, and the Judicial. Precedents
of every kind are thick in its support. In
deed, the very bill now before us, assumes
control Of the territory clearly inconsis-
tent with those principles of sovereignty,
which are said to be violated by Con-
gressional prohibition of Slavery.
Here are provisions, determining the
main features in the Goyernment---the
distribution Of powers in the Executive,
the Legislative, and Judicial departments,
and the manner in which they shall be
respectively notwithstanding to the
President, with the consent of the Senate,
the appointment of the governor, the sec
rotary, and the judges, and to the people
the election of the legislature-ordaining
the qualifications Of voters, the salaries of
the public officers, and the daily compen-
sation Of the members Of the legislature.
Surely, if Congress may establish these
provisions, without any interference with
the rights Of territorial sovereignty, it is
absurd to say that it may not also prohibit
Slavery.
" But there is in the very bill an express
prohibition on the Territory, borrowed
from the Ordinance Of 1887, and repeated
in every act organizing Territory, or even
new State. down to the present time,
wherein il is expressly declared, that mo
tax shall be imposed upon the property Of
the United States" Now, here is clear
and unquestionable restraint upon the
sovereignty Of Territories and States.
The public lands Of the United States,
situated within an organized Territory or
State, cannot be regarded as the insfru-
ments and means necessary and proper to
execute the sovereign powers of the ma
ton, like Notifications, arsenals, and navy
yards. They are strictly in the nature OF
private property Of the nation, and as such,
unless exempted by the foregoing prohibi-
ton, would clearly be within the field OF
local taxation, liable, like the lands Of
other proprietors, to all customary bur-
dens and incidents. Mr.. Justice Wood
bury has declared, in a well-considered
Judgment, that "where the United States
0 wn land situated within the limits of par
ii cular States, and over which they have
mo- cession Of jurisdiction, for objects Ell
th,,r special or general, little doubt exists
thai the rights and remedies in relation TO
il are usually the same as apply to other
lan1hold. ers within the States. 80 United
States vs., Woodbury. and Minot, p. rs. J
assume, then, that without this prohibi-
ton these lands would be liable TO taxa
ton. Does any one question this No
body. The conclusion then follows, that
by this prohibition you propose Il, deprive
the present Territory, as you have deprived
other Territories aye, and States--of an
essential portion Of its sovereignty.
The Supreme Cou II Of the United States
have given great pro, uinence to the soyer-
eign right oftaxation I'm the States. In the
case Of Providence Bank Us. Plttman, 4
Peters, 5l4, they declare
"That the taxing pc wer is Of vital i'm
portance; that Il Is essential TO the existence o
Government; that the REIMBURSEMENT OF such
power is never 10 be assum ed;
And again, in the case Of Dobblns Us
Commissioners of Erie c, ounty, 10 Peters
447, they say
Taxation is a sacred right, essential TO IN
existence Of Governmeni--a.a incident q sore
reigiay. The right Of legis aton IS co-exten
sive with the incident, TO attach u upon al
persons and property within the jurisdiction 0
the State"
Now, | call upon Sem tors TO remark