The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-09-01

sentiments; and beside this, perhaps,
draw hence inferences fatal to our indie
pendence, and consequently subYersiye
OF that confidence which we are most
solicitous 10 maintain.
You viii do US the Justice to be as
sured that this apprehension has not its
origin in a selhshness which regards
our own reputation merely for its own
sake, but in deep anxiety for the pub
lie interests which We feel to be largely
dependent upon the estimate as well of
the independence as of the uprightness
and ability of those to whom are assign
ed the Interpretation and administration
Of the laws
We have felt the less hesitation in
examining aud responding to your ques-
tons, because there is much reason to
doubt whether, under any circumstances,
the difficulties involved in them might
presented to US judicially for solution
These reasons for doubt are supposed. to
be found in tie views of the Supreme
Court of the United States as expressed
in 9Th Howard's Reports, p. 343, in the
case of Scott ct al. vs.. Jones, in which
the constitutional existence of the Ter
ritorial Legislature of Michigan was pro-
posed 10 be brought into review.
Without attempting an elaborate ex-
animation of the points of that case, it
is sufficient for our present purpose to
say that the whole tenor of the argu-
ment of that high tribunal is to demon
strate that the subject matter of legiSla-
tive bodies, and not the competency OF
their organization, forms the true and
only topic ofjudieial revision. Should
such an exigency arise as an unwarran-
table attempt at legislation by any body
wanting the necessary elements, say they,
''if not situltcd within the territory of
the Union, it, "would be a foreign af-
fair, and hot within the cognizance of
the departments Of this government,
unless so interfering with its rights as to
call for the political exercise of the exc
culive or legislative authority over our
foreign relations" Again, such con
duet by bodies situated within our limits,
unless by States duly admitted into the
Union, would have TO be reached either
by the power of the Union to put down
illsurrection, or by the ordinary penal
laws of the States or Territories, within
which these bodies unlawfully organ
ized agesiguatei, and acting" language
maniieStIy referring te the assumption OF
legislative power by her self-constituted
and rebellious organizations.
Again they speak in terms which ad-
NIT OF no question of their understand
ing of tie relations of these departments
of Government, when they say 1.-The
Judicial tribunals of the general govern
ment which acquiesce in the political
organization that has been protesting to
pass sla;uteS," DC.
Afer remarking in addition as to their
recognition ofsuct hodies as duly or
ganized, and conceding their existence,
therefore, as "A State, and that their stat
utes must be treated as the statutes of
any other State, within the meaning of
the actof 1899, known as the Judiciary
act, they add: "And, ifso, we must in
quire only into the validity of their sub
ject matter, and not as to the new, any
more than the old States, ever suppose
the question of their pclitical competency
or power 10 pass statutes at all, was an
inquiry intended to be placed under our
consideration and decision" by the act
above mentioned.
We could not but regard an attempt
to evade tile force of these views by the
suggestion that they were expressed
particularly with reference to State Or
carnations, and therefore not appliea-
ble to the position of Territorial Leg
-islature, as more resembling quibble
than an argument, unless, indeed, con-
trary To our full conviction, some differ
ence in principle between the several
organization. applicable to the point in
controversy, could be shown.
1t would not only 50 partake of the
appearance of a quibble, but what is of
more force, it would falsify the facts of
the case. since the very question presen-
ted arose upon the legislation of Ter
ritory, and would inevitably have drawn
from the august body which pronounced
the decision such distinction if. in their
Judgment, such distinction existed.
Having referred to this decision in
maintenance of the propriety ofrespond-
ing in this Unofficial manner to your IN
quiries, we will add before dismisslng 1t
that il is no less forcible to sustain the
proposition that you are yourselves the
Judges, without appeal or revision, OF
whatever may be embraced IN the man
ner and form of your organization, and
that neither an objection to your place
of session or of any other matter not
embraced within the subject matter of
the operative provisions of your legisla-
ton can be called in question elsewhere.
We viii but add to these reasons
satisfactory TO ourselves, and We trust to
you-that we are graiiied TO find our
selves sustained, in position altogether.
novel, in the course. we have adopted,
by precedent, to which. 50 far as We
know, no objection has arisen pFeee-
dent, too, which goes much farther than
we have determined TO go. A resolution
of the Legislature of Minnesota Territory
propounding questions TO the Judges of
the Supreme Court of that Territory,
was fully replied 10 by the Judges. See
proceedings of the first session OF the
Minnesota Legislature.
Having determined to reply to the -ex-
tent indicated, the nature of that reply
next comes to be considered.
Upon this we have had no difficulty.
We have not been able to discover any
substantial objection to the constitution
atty of the course of the Legislative
Assembly. We could see. in the change
of the place OF your session out OF mere
caprice, much that would be objection
able to good taste and 70 that spirit OF
Difference to regularity and order which
the people have right as well as an
Unborn disposition to expect IN those