Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-03-25

. law against their express declaration.
To ascertain the intent OF the isatlre in order Il
execute IT, object Of all judicial rules OF interpreta
ton Where that intent in any particular is expressly
declared court may, and If it can ought to gather il
from other particulars in which the Legislature may have
expressly spoken but TO impue purpose which is IL
terms disc to make Law accomplish what is declared
not to be the of its makers would be to overrule
and obey the legislative power to subver and not
TO maintain the law
Now Mr. President upon the original form of the pro-
vision introduced the motion Of the chairman Of the
Committee Territories ask if it is possible that any
man can make doubt, raise dispute can involve
for moment person accustomed either to legal dis
uuston to ordinary reasoning, upon the point that
this repeal revives nothing? "Whch'tbat is the
cusion Of slavery 10y the restriction in the Missouri law
sbeng inconsistent with the principle, of non-nterren
ton by Congress with slavery in the States and Terri
tories recognised by the legislation Of 1850 Commonly
called the compromise measures is hereby declared in
operative and void The result would have been clear
upon that statement had the amendment proceeded no
further; but continues at being the true intent and
meaning of this legsate slavery into any Ter
ritory State exclude it thererom but to leave
the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate
their domestic institutions in their way
Sir if the pro-slavery law which existed in that Terri
tory when acquired from France be revived by the
repeal of the Missouri compromise act then Congress re-
wives it; then Congress puts again in force then 1t is
the of Congress which truly though indirectly esta
bishes the pro-slagery law there Ii taken of
the way by the Missouri law and if Congress- by repeal
ing the Missouri law, revive the other then Congress
Of the amendment OF the committee is express that it is
the intent and meaning of this to legslate
slavery into any Territory State, to exclude it
therefrom. Now undertake say that it is clear to
moral demonstration that if that provision had stood in
those words there is court in America, high low
that would have held for moment that that repeal
had the effect of reyisng any law. WE'LL then, what is
the proviso! ..Y .'.
Prord That nothing herein contained shall be construed
to revive put force law regulation which may have
existed prior to the act Of the 9th Of March, 1920 either
sectnG establishing prohibiting, aboishing slavery
The allegation that there had been law authoriz
ing slavery and that that law repealed by the pro-
hbitiou in the Missouri act These the oply two
laws upon the subject the only two laws that had
been in force. There a law authorizing sla-
very when the territory belonged to France. BY the
net of 1920 that law annulled. H. then, is clear
and evident beyond dispute, that clause without the
Proyso did not revive that law, i: did not revive any
There to be revived There had been allow
ance and there had been prohibition The prohibition
IS repealed without revvng the allowance and therefore
the subject stands without any law upon it, taba rasa
free for the introduction of such legislation the Terri
tory in its organized form shall think proper make
That is precisely what the language Of the provso de-
clares not because it not clear to demonstration to
legal mind before; not because there could have
bsen a moments hesitation in any court in coming to
that conclusion but because it due, it emf
nently proper that those gentlemen who, from Northern
and Northwestern constituencies, supporting the
provision in this BILL should not be liable to any msre
presentation before collections of persons who however
honest might not have the ability perhaps to under
stand the reasoning clear as it may seem to us upon
which the conclusion was arrived at; end therefore it
was thought just and right to say in unmstakable terms
that the planest understanding comprehend, what
had already been said unmstakable By legal
understanding. That was ALL ..
1t is very singular, Mr. President allow me to remark
that complaints have been made OF this provision by
gentlemen who entirely content with the enactment
proposed by what called the Clayton compromise Of
lS4e. But what that compared with this Why,
1t was just exactly ii this Territory had been cousu
AnA tha 1rA
act and leaving, therefore, law in force, unless the
courts should determine it to be itutiona, which
excluded the admission Of slavery into the Territory 1t
me- therefore, that only is this, beyond all
dispute, right and proper and susceptible OF the in
terPrstation that have to it, demonsra5ly so, but
that it has this advantage the former compromise
that the only real or supposed obstruction is removed out
Of the way of the Territorial Legislatures aud real and
full power in form and in fact given them to regulate
this domestic relation for themselves.
said, Mr.. President that there two subjects to
which wished TO refer The other is, that Of
Scuhern friends have been accusedand Of course must
fall under tae same category, acted with them
this occasionof having, by their for this bill in the
form in which it was put sanctioned the doctrine Of
Inherent sovereignty, inherent right govern them
selves in the people OF Territory, and denial,
quently of the rgh. the part of Congress govern
them or in other words, what has received the appea-
ton, from the distinguished Senator from Michigan, of
the doctrine Of "squGtter sovereignty"
Mr. CASS. | beg the gentleulan's pardon. did not
call it lcaed it the doctrine of the right Of
govern themselves The other is the reproacfu term.
Mr. BADGER Yes, sir, but you applied it to squat
tiers it amounts to the same thing Mr.. President, do
not in admit the existence OF any such right
hold, with the HONORABLE Senator from Indiana Mr.
Petit that the powers of Congress the territory
of the United States penary that have right to
form their Governments in such manner think best
We have right, if please to govern them ourselves
without giving them any distinct organization and
ercise such dominion them in the judgment
gress shall be wise just, and reasonable.
The honorable Senator from Michigan, who has more
than addressed the Senate this subject seemed
be good deal troubled because the power govern the
Territories had been referred and deduced from
specific provision in the constitution and he asked tha
those who maintained the existence of the power shoul
lay their fingers that clause Of the constitution which
conferred it. Sir think it very evident that Congress
may possess unquestionabe power without any man
being able to lay his finger the clause Of the consttu
ton which gives it. One instance is good dozen
Does question the power of Congress purchase
library? Yet will any man lay his finger upon th'
clause OF the constitution which con!ers the power? NJ
man can do it. This is perhaps the power exercised by
Congress which is the most remote from any connexoI
with expressly granted power. When therefore, h
Supreme Court of the United States tell us that from
whatever source the power may be derived the power
unquestonabe, they have not stated that power il
doubtful they have not ntimated that the power Con
gressi liable TO dispute dsparagemen but only this
that, though the may be doubtful the poweris
tain IL has been deluccd from several by
from the power to make all needfu rules and regula
tons respecting the terrtory by others again a. a ne
cessary and inevitable consequence Of the power to &c
quire and by others because the territory being out
the jurisdiction of any particular State and yet belong
ing to the United States the government of the Terror
must be in the hands Of that power which represents thu
whole of the United States But the court say howeve
derived We have it; il is unquestionable
Well, sir, If power be unquesonablc, il is a mer
matter OF curiosity TO endeavor TO trace its origin II