The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-03-23
CITY OF WASHINGTON THURSDAY MORNING. MARCH %. 1854

church II her headshp over the church were not re.
stored by Elizabeth 1t followed that The high commits
sion court could have no jurisdiction for the Queen was
he fountain and source from which alone power could
be derived TO that tribunal Now let consider briefly
what Lord Coke lays down why he held that the first
statute was revived by the repeating statutes OF Eliza
beth. lie says
''Fr the title OF the act is AN act restoring TO the
crown The ancient jurisdiction, &e BY this the nature OF
the act doth appear 10 be an act OF restitution"
And this is also manifest by the preamble OF the act,
where il is said:
'Whereas divers good laws were made In the time OF
The late King Henry the Vl for the exngashment ol all
forein power and for the restoring into the OF this
realm the aneent rights and jurisdictions Of the same
From whence this Is drawn, that seeing the
presse letter and meaning 10 restore 10 the crown The an
cen ecclesiastical and no eommisonsr by loree o una,
ancient eeciesasca jurisdiction could impose hne end
Imprisonment that these commissioners having their force
from this ac, Of restitution oanaot punish any parry by
Tine or Imprisonment, Otherwise than shall be hereafter eS-
pressed &c. AMH
Having thus opened the design of the statute from its
title and eeais, he subsequently thus dednces his con-
cusions:
And upon Ibis being the fnai nten,ion OF this
act the tile and preamble doe the subsequents
and theten .hings are to be
"Frs that by this Queen Elizabeth was not declared
sa tbs satass o and Phi and Mar. cap. (wheieby
amongst Others, the OF 26 IL g. and % IL 3 cap
g. repeatedly by this act fade utte ry VOID, and
tie OF repeal being repealed the OF rs
H. g. cap, and 35 IL s. cap g. were amongst Others i'm
the King his heirs and spccess
should be taken and accepted the only saprcam head
on earth OF the Church OF England"
Now, sir, ills impossible TO consider the terms in which
Black lays down this rule, and the statutes which
furnish the illustration Of il, and The grounds lad down
by Lord Coke for his Interpretation, without seeing that
the whole question to the intent OF The legsla
ture Therefore be says the ac being entitled act TO
restore the jurisdiction OF the in eccesas
CAL the preamble recng that such is the object Of the
statute, and then the statute repeating the repeating law
q
men to sol up the repealed statute Why The intent
OF Parliament TO restore the headshp and usdcton
but could not be done by the repeating law unless the
first law conierrng the headshp and jurisdiction was
thereby lmplledly revived Now, suppose for mo-
nen that that repeating statute instead Of reciing that
lis object 10 restore the ecclesiastical jurisdiction OF
the crown as head OF the church, had recited IL being
the true intent and meaning OF this present Parliament
By its islegisiaion, TO make exclude any temporal
head OF The church, but 10 leave to the convocaons Of
Canterbury and York 10 settle that matter they may
deem best tor the interests OF The church is possible 10
conceive that any court, judge, lawyer IN England,
could have held that in defiance OF tha, declarations The
Queen vas made The head OF the church, by setting up
statute which they make the Parliament sci up in order
to destroy the very object which they declare they bad IN
view in repeating the repeating law
The whole subject lies within t.shell. Where a
law repealed, aud the repeating statute is subsequently
repealed, IL is question oil construction whether or not
The first statute is thereby sc, up III The last statute
show It's purpose TO sp the 6r.t ii is up,
because all that Is necessary TO establish or abolish
law Is declaration Of us Will by the legislative power.
there shall be law upon the subjec-and there will
be hone II second statute be repealed, unless the FIRST
be resiored-then the courts may nghny infer (noth-
ing being said 10 the contrary by the legsatue) that II
was the Intention, in repeating the second, 10 up the
first To illustrate this, suppose there were statute
which punished with death certain offence which al
common law mrdemeanor, and suppose that stat
ute should be repealed, and subsequently The repeating
statute should be repealed; II the last statute sand nothing
about the purpose intent OF the legsatuTe-nothng ng
from which the intent could be coected-it might be a
W her
suppose the law repealed with the express decafa
ton that the Legislature deemed capital punishment too
severe Tor a Of that description, what would oi-
low Why, clearly, that neither statute would be in
force and the offence would be le TO be dealt with
msdeme amor at common law.
Therefore MIR President II we are 10 place any rei.
ance upon the prn tples laid downf give any
weight the illustration which Is given by Blackstone
il any force is 10 be attributed 10 the upon which
Lord Coke grounds bis conclusion that the statutes q
Henry were'se up BY the repeal, IN the hTsl year OF
Elizabeth OF the repeating statute OF and II Philip and
MaIy-ihe conclusion Is irresistible that nothing 10 any
such case accomplished but implied revival OF
peal law in order TO accomplish presumed intent OF the
Legislature but It is an established rule that there can
be Implication IN any instrument deed, OF statute
against express contrary declaration. What do you
mean by an implied revival revival supposed, in.
tended aken 10 have been purposed where the legs
ature silent and say nothing expressly upon the
point But II the Legislature exclude the implication
then, their will is TO govern there can be revival
of Law against their express declaration
! To ascertain the intent OF the legislature, 40 order Ia
execute the OBJECT OIL JUDICIAL rules OF ineTpTe
ation. Whefe that Intent IN any particular Is hot
pressy declared court may, and II u can, ought Il
gather il from other particulars IN which tbe legislature
may have expressly spoken; but 10 imPute purpose
which is In terms disowned 10 make law accomplish
what is declared not TO be the intent OF its makers
would be oyerrule and not TO obey the legislative
power--to subyert, and not 10 maintain the law
Now, MIR. President, upon the original form OF the
provision introduced the motion OF the chairman o.
The Committee on Territories, ask if IL is possible tha
any make doubt, can raise dispute, can m
volye for any person accustomed either lega
dsqusion or 10 ordinary reasoning, upon the point hs
this repeal Ieyiyes nothngl blch"-ihat s, the ek
clusion oi slavery by the restriction in the Missouri
law" being inconsistent with the principle Of non-in
tefvenOn by Congress with slavery in the States anC
Territories recognised by the legislation Of 1850
Commonly called the compromise measures) IL hereby
declared imperative and void" The result would have
been clear upon that statement had the amendment pro
cpeded further; but IL continues % being the true
intent and meaning OF this act moi 10 egslae SLAYER,
into any Territory State, nor 10 exclude u heferom
bot the people thereof perfectly free 10 form
regulate their domestic institutions 10 their way"
SIR il The pro-slsveTy law which existed in that ter
ritory when we acquired il iron France be revived B.,
the repeal o The Missouri Compromise act then Con
grsss Tevves II then Congress puts i again 10 otce
then Il IS lhe act of Congress which iruly though ind
recty establishes the pfoslav,ry law there. II va,
taken out OF tie way by the Missouri law; and Con
gress by repeating the MssOur law, revive he other
then Congress lcgislaes slavery into the Territory Y
the declaration Of the amendment ol tie committee il
press that il s not The intent and meaning OF TIM
ac to egisste slavery into any Territory or State, nor 4
exclude II ihereitom Now, undertake to say that II i
clear moral demonstration, that " that provision bar
stood in those words, there s court IN America higl
OF low, that would have held Tor one momen that tha
repeal bad lie effect OF revivng any law Well, then