The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-04-30

Il - NNNf i""yf ""t" '"ee w iVehhSt
1t true the Missouri prohibition operated as repeal
upon all the laws then existing for the protection of
very, tat did IL created perpetual barrier against
similar legislation in the future Ii therefore would not
follow that repeal Of this perpetual prohibition
riy showed the intention revive laws which existed
at the time of the prohibition and destroyed by
influence, -
While the construction Of statutes at the common law i
such have stated the civil law declares that the re-
peal of repeating statute shall revive the former law
1 will not stop to inquire whether, il is contended
that the civil law of Louisiana in terrific
res and the act Of 1920, well the proposed
territorial acts In their operation the construction
The courts would not be governed by the civil law rule
IL is evident that II the acts had been passed by
territorial legislature in country where the civil law
prevailed, it would be So These considerations waive
because great OF legislation stand upon
broader and surer grounds
The rules of the and civil law vary much less
than they appear to do BY the former the will give
effect to the intention to revive without cypress oord by
the latter the Legislature must revive the old laws by
| formal re-enactnent .l5ES fH
BY either rule however the created by The
legislation and the effect and responsibility precisely
the same, whether flows from necessary implication
| expression. hSH 3a 4.8 M
The objection therefore, to the BILL with or without the
Badger proviso only amount to thishat the South
should not assent to the passage Of the repeating
the perpetual prohibition and leaving the people inhab
ing the territories pass such laws they may under
the constitution deem best without northern friends
will also to reenact the black code of Louis XIV and
all other prosavery laws which supposed TO have
| isted prior TO 1920.
Sir the South should have made her stand in 1920 when
THESE laws theL IN l 10rce S IS contended were repca
ed If the South submitted to it then, demand
ofnorthern to re-esabsh them? For will not
such ground this reject the proposition rendered by
brave and patriotic of the North in the bill
before II we do not thereby regain all the ground
lost in $780, shall at least oberac that hateful
tional line which, for thrtyour years has fstered in the
wounded side of the constitution. R.t r
1t is to this miserable line containing it does
gressonal imputaon against the Institutions Of one-ha
OF the States, that much Of the abolition agitation
in and out of these halls Hcw strongly was this de-
scribed by Mr. Jefferson few months after the passage Of
the act ha lItss8 ..a-ts t1 sF7t y
But this momentous question, like frebell night
as the kne Of the Union 1t is hushed indeed the mo
men but this is repreve only, not final sentence
political. conceived and held up to G angry passions
ef "e. ,ea aeeer Be odterad a"deUey irritation i'
Let then representatives casting from us all minor
objections firmly unite for the eradication Of this geo
graphical ne fatal to the harmony of the Union
SO hostile to the spirit of institutions csfo a5t n
Another objection, Mr. Chairman has been urged
against the bill by gentlemen from the South is that it
recognises what is termed Hsquater sovereignty the pro-
vision being that the true intent and meaning Of this act
not to egslae slavery into any Territory State
exclude it therom but to leave the people thereof free
form and regulate their domestic institutions their
way sntJecf only 10 the conSinfion Of the United States
Now, II is admitted that difference Of opinion exists be-
tween the different sections Of the confederacy the
period when the right Of the people of the Territory
upon the subject of the admission exclusion Of
slavery arises On the hand ii is said that this right
exists soon as the territorial organization takes place
| the people proceed TO establish State government
Now, sir the South has ontended that under the
OF the States with their slave property into the Terri
tories II SO, Congress cannot confer power which does
not itself possess and the constitutional restriction
would restrain the territorial Legislature
Wherever territory extends, constitution follows
and controls it. denial of this involves the difficulty
into which Mr. Webster fell in the celebrated colloouy
with Mr. Calhoun in the Senate in February 1s4e; for
while he denied that the constitution extended the
Territories Brro pgor he con'ended that the power to
govern the Territories was granted in the constitution in
| so many words e6 q 1tes
But whatever may be the merit Of that controversy
not necessary to determine the bill before the
consntio expressly the Territories by leaving the
people thereof perfectly free form and regulate their do
mesc Institutions in their way, subject only to The
| sttlition Of the United States
Under those provisions of the constitution comforting the
and trcatymaking power believe that territory may
be acquired The right to govern il is an incident pro-
vded for in the clause authorizing all laws necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers
and all other powers vested by this constitution in the
government Of the United States in any department
When the Territory of Louisiana was purchased the
proprietary interest in the soil vested in the people of the
States who the parties the federal compact
4 The sovereignty the soil vested in the hands
This is evident II the had taken place
/ der the articles OF confederation. E. #ssts
The legal right to dispose Of the soil and govern
the Territory Is vested in Congress The right is cxclu
sye but not absolute unlimited Congress, being the
agent trustee for the good and benefit of the
people OF the several States pass act either in the
disposition Of the soil in the government Of the Terri
tory inconsistent with the rights of benefcaries in the
trust for It's principle of the law Of nations that all the
members OF community have equal right to the Of
the property and this principle less strong
| y secured in the constitution ofour Union. 5e
The bin refers the question Of legislation the subject
slavery the people Of the Territories One side
ains that such legislation would not be authorized until
the formation Of State government; the other that il
would be the territorial government is organ
lied But whether the the other be correct depends
upon the constitution The bill expressly Though unne
cessariiy declares that their legislation shall be subject
to the constitution Of the United States And the differ
thus existing to the appropriate period Of lefsla
ting this subject is left to be decided by the Judicial m
bunnls Of the country according TO constitutional right
and the support Of the bill involves compromise
| cession bv either side. s.ta tue sta.0 F alar
But Mr. Chairman il Is not from southern objecors that
the friends Of this have any serious apprehensons
for probably in the history of the government the South
was firmly united she is at present; but il Is
i from that compact active and restless party, which loses
occasion Of political excitement TO up the sectional
| preudices and jealousies Of the country.
Sir the question Of slavery with It's attendant diff
i cues existed before day IL maturey consid-
who delberaed together in the convention which framed
constitution and the results of their deliberahon arc
| to be found in its provisions. +. .a
The prejudice against this nstuon which existed then
did prevent them from entering into the Union And
II they found Il necessary sacrifice this prejudice to
sumatc the Union let II be forgotten by their de-
scendants that ne sacrifice ts necessay prcserre
II has been urged an objection TO the bill that free
labor will not flow freely into Territories where slave
labor exists II is evident sir that there arc natural
which regulate this question which forever the
larger portion Of the Territories to what is termed free la
bor What then, sir If portion of them is subjected TO
nsttutons2 Will any injury result TO the nom