Washington sentinel., 1854-03-01

only TO the territory before it is constituted int
n State or States, but also afterwards. Nov
there are three several decisions in which tn,
Supreme Court have decided that no limita
tons upon the power of the States can be im
posed by any legislation OF Congress- or ever
by their own contracts. The hrst case is ina
of Pollard's lessee rs. Hagan, Is Howard, P
2l2,) in which Judge Mckinley delivered th'
opinion Of the court. He says, speaking o
the cession of the Territory of Alabama b.
Georgia to the United States:
aIfan express stipulation had been inserted il
the agreement granting the municipal right o
sovereignty and eminent domain TO the Unite,
States such stipulation would have been void an,
iuoperative; because the United States have n,
constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jnris
diction, sovereignty, or eminent domain within
the limits of a State, or elsewhere, except in III,
cases in which il is expressly granted"
And again, he says that
"The right of Alabama, and every other new
State, 10 exercise all the powers of government
which belong 10 and may be exercised by the
original States of the Union must be admitted and
remain unquestioned, except so far as they are
temporarily deprived of the control over the pub
lie lands"
So, too, in the case which came up shortly
afterwards in the case of Permoli rs. First
municipality, g Howard, 589,) which was a
case involving a question as to the obligation
of those provisions of the ordinance upon the
State Of Louisiana which had been extended
over her whilst in territorial condition.
Judge Catron delivered the opinion Of the
court. He says:
Forthis provision [ofthe ordinancelis claimed
the sanction of an unaterabe law of Congress.
and insisted that the city ordinances above have
violated il and what the force of the ordinance is
north of the Ohio we do not pretend 10 say, as il
A. ~.tk.. arxfth -. D,,t
a regards the State of Louisiana, it had no fur
ther force, after the adoption OF the State consti-
tuition, than other acts of Congress organizing. in
part. the territorial government OF Orleans, and
standing in connexion with the ordinance of 1851
Ii is not possible maintain that the United States
hold in trust by force Of the ordinance for the peo
pie Of louisiana all the great elemental principles,
or any one of them contained in the ordinance.
and secured 10 the people Of the Orleans Territory
during its existence.
In the case Of Strader Us. Graham, (l0 How.
ard. 81 Judge Taney delivered the opinion OF
the court, in which he declared that the ordi-
nance of 1887 ceased to be in force upon the
adoption Of the Constitution" and says, speak
ing Of some of its provisions
"Ifthey could he regarded as yet IN operation
in the States formed within the limits of the North
western Territory. il would place them in an in
ferior condition compared with other States
and subject their domestic institutions and mun
cipal regulations TO the supervision and control o
this court.
So that in three several decisions the court
has decided that this ordinance of 1877, SO far
as it could be applied to States, did not operate
after the State governments were constituted
and did not operate because it was unconstitu
tional.
Now this Missouri restriction shows, upon its
very face, that it was designed to operate upon
the Territory. after it shall become State or
States; and if that be the case, can there be
any doubt of it's nconstitutionality? Uncon-
stitutiona it is in the opinion of the court; m
constitutional according to the right conclusion
of reason; unconstitutional, am happy to be-
ieve. in the opinion of ninety-nine hundreths
of the American people, who believe that it
is the right of the people of the State to de-
termine and establish their own institutions.
Now, if this restriction be of the character
which / have described; if, in truth, it does
impair the equality of the States; ifit does vio-
late the Constitution of the United States, why
should it longer cumber the statute-book?
Why should ANYBODY object to its repeal?
Why should the north-I appeal to them now
rs practical men-why should the north OBJ
iect to the removal of this restriction, and OBJ
ieet to the passage of this bill? So far as the
question of the extension OF slavery is concern
ed is it to them matter OF any practical i'm
portance whether this bill passes or fails? Does
any man believe that you will have slave.
holding State in Kansas or Nebraska? con-
fess that, for a moment, / permitted such an
illusion to rest upon my mind. But, upon a
further examination of the subject, came to
the conclusion that it was utterly hopeless to
endeavor to effect any such thing. Slavery
might 90 there for time; it might go into the
Territories while other labor was DEAR and as
sist in preparing the country for admission as a
State into the Union. But, in my opinion. it
could not survive the formation of a State con-
stitution: it would pass away into that region
which was more suitable for the negro, and
better fitted for his labor-a region which, for
a long time to come, will be large enough for
the employment of that labor, and more genial,
in every respect, to the African race than that
embraced in this bill. What, then, would be
the effect upon the north, even if we were to
disperse the negro race a little more? 1t would
certainly be n great beneht to the negro; Tor his
race. like every other, requires for its improve
ment a capacity for emigration To send him
where his labor is most profitable is, in the
general. to give him larger share of its pro-
ceeds. and to place him in climate and upon
a soil more suitable to his constitution.
What the Senator from North Carolina Mr.
p,ncERl said upon this subject was not less
,rne than beautiful. These facilities for emf
grafton are nndoubt dly grent boon to him.
But put his happiness out of the question, moi
because do not think that we ought not to con-
slider it. but for the arguments sake. wish to
consider the. matter now in reference only to
the white race, and to the northern portion OF
that white race. IF the negro raea we're more
dispersed throughout the Union, would it do the
north any harm? Suppose that there were
more slave States than there are now, and many
of them, or, perhaps, the most of them, had no
more slaves than Delaware now has. would the
north be injured by slavery being thus extend
ed? So far as the interests of the nonslave-
holding States are concerned, ara not the in
terests Of Delaware similar to theirs? Do the
few slaves she possesses have any effect upon
her course here, except to make her more con,
servatiye upon the subject Of slavery With
this disnnrsion. then. you would diminish the