Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-19

State, down TO the period of the Missouri
prohibition, was an act ofintervention to change
the character of the territory or State. And,
as | said ut the outset, when he asked to ex-
| plain, said that if he meant that policy TO ap-
| ply after the date ofthe Constitution, il was as
| great mistake as he could fall into. Now,
sir, with regard to that territory which have
in my minds eye, out of which Alabama and
i Mississippi were constituted States afterwards,
that territory was within the boundaries Of the
United States There were conflicting claims,
and all the claims to that territory We're con-
yeyed to the United States. South Carolina
conveyed first; Georgia afterwards. The res
olution of South Carolina authorizing n convey
ance was in the month of March, 1857. The
deed of cession of South Carolina was on the
Sth of August, 1887, before the formation OF
the Constitution. And now whether the true
title was derived under South Carolina or un-
der Georgia, they we're both Of them slave
States, and the character of the territory was
| the same; and when territorial government
was organized, covering that portion Of the ter
ritory of the United States, it was organized as
slave territory, and admitted afterwards as slave
territory, without any intervention on the part
Of Congress for the purpose of changing its
| character.
Upon these facts Of history, know the sena-
4
lenge him or any other senator to produce an
act of Congress, under the Constitution, in the
organization of Territory or in the admission
of State, until the year 1920, by which the
character of Territory was changed from slave
holding to nonslayeholding, or from non-save-
holding to slaveholding. 1t was the principle
Of non-interyention which Congress adopted;
and that principle was carried ont during the
first thirty years Of the government, and until
the generation upon the stage when the Con-
stitution was adopted, the men who by their
votes adopted it, had passed away. | know,
sir, that in these facts Of the legislative history
of the country ain not mistaken; and If the
honorable senator from Ohio applied his pro-
position as to the early policy Of the country to
a period anterior to the formation of the Con,
sttution, which it seems he did, should have
no occasion to say anything upon that subject,
because it has nothing to do with the policy Of
this government under the Constitution. con-
fine myself to the policy Of the government
since the adoption Of the CONSTITUTIONS for BY
that Constitution a new policy was instituted,
and the Constitution never could have been
adopted, it never would have been considered
1 by half the States Of this Union, fany principle
OF intervention had been carried into it. / re-
peat sir, that if the principle Of intervention
| with this institution had been carried into the
| Constitution, it never would have been adopted,
and this government never would have been es-
tablished.
Sir this principle Of nonintervention is one
Of the leading principles of the Constitution.
1t is a legitimate inference from the general ar
rangement Of powers between the States and
the federal government. The powers conferred
on the federal government are of general
character, limited to cases requiring general
sc 81,
| country, not of domestic nature, where the
law must needs be different in different places,
and always adapted to the peculiar condition
| Of the inhabitants. War and peace, commerce
| and currency, naturalization and bankruptcy,
the protection Of authors and inventors, post
offices and post roads, felonies and piracies on
the high seas, offences against the laws of ma
tons, all these require general laws, uniform
laws Of a general character, and they are there
fore, assigned to the federal government Look
into the enumeration Of powers and you will
find there all powers of a general character re-
quiring uniformity of legislation for the whole
country assigned to the federal government,
that the federal government might establish
uniform and universal laws, applicable to the
whole country. On the other hand, the local,
| internal, or domestic affairs of particular COM
munities require laws of limited extent and
local adaptation and hence the law of per-
sonal rights, and the laws of private property,
all varying as the people vary, as the locality
varies, are reserved to the local legislatures.
Now, sir, ask how it is possible for any one
to suppose that when there is no express grant
of the power Of intervention on this subject to
be found in the Constitution, when one.half of
the States were pursuing one system Of domes-
tic policy, and the other half Of the States were
pursuing an opposite system Of policy; when
one of the Territories was subject to one of
these systems. and the other Territory to the
opposite system, and this domestic policy
touched the very framework of society, how is
it possible for any one to suppose that these
sovereign States, in setting up the new govern
" ment; intended to confer upon it any jurisdic-
ton whatever over this vital, local, domestic
difficult, and dangerous question?
The rule of strict construction, sir-the rule
which denies the existence Of powers unless
expressly granted or necessarily implied; which
vindicates and maintains the reserved rights Of
the States and the people; which repudiates the
exercise of doubtful constitutional powers
if applied to the territorial clause Of the Con-
stitution, show the exceeding slight and narrow
basis on which the assumed right Of interven
ton is generally supposed 10 rest. The clause
sir, is one that has exhausted the ability and
eloquence of the honorable and distinguished
senator fran Michigan, Mr.. CAss.
i 1.-THE Congress shall have power 10 dispose Of
aad make all needfu rules and regulations re-
speeding the territory or other property belonging
| 10 the United States"
Territory or other property belonging to
the United States Nothing is here spoken
of which is not strictly property, or which does
not Jelong to the United States. In other
words, the subject is property and property
only, and is limited to that which belongs to
the United States. The only power granted
therefore, is to make all needful rules and reg
ulations respecting this property. Now, sir,
upon the principle of strict construction, can it
be said that law respecting the domestic re-
lations is a law respecting land, a rule, regu-
ation respecting land? Or, if the government
has parted with the lands, and citizens of the
United States have become the owners, upon
the principle of strict construction is law re-
specting these lands, and their new owners a
1 law respecting @territory or other property be-
~. MS ~.