The Placer herald., 1856-01-19
Todd's Valley Correspondence.
TOpiDl's VALLEY, JAN.

TODDS VALLEY, JAN. IL, 1906.
Mr.. Editor:-I notice in the last Atlantic pa
rers that serious difficulties were apprehended in
Kansas growing out of the slavery question.
Inst at this time there seems to be great di-
versty of feeling and opinion in regard to the
mower of the general government in relation to
The territories. The question seems to be: where
does the powers of the United States cease, and
the territories begin? What rights have Congress
and what rights have the Territories? These
questions must be determined not by fine spun
metaphisical theories, but by the Constitution of
the United States. By that instrument the gene
raj government has certain granted powers. but
they are limited, and congress can exercise these.
The power to exercise jurisdiction is one thing,
and to interfere in the regulations of the domestic
affairs of the people is quite another.
The power OF organizing territorial govern
ments must be lodged somewhere, and is very
properly conceded to the general government, but
conceive that the power of congress stops here.
IF It goes farther OF what earthly use is terrific.
rial legislature? Again, this involves principle
which underies the whole structure of our sys-
tenn of government. A disregard of this princi-
ple by the mother country engendered that spirit
of resistance that resulted in the achievement of
our independence. The coloniesat that time bore
about the same relation to Great Britain that the
territories do to our general government. Pro-
yncial governments were organized by Parliment
and governors appointed by the crown, yet to the
people was reserved the right of colonial legisla-
zion in matters pertaining to their domestic af-
fairs.
Our fathers wisely contended that the right to
establish colonies or territories did not carry with
it the right to regulate the domestic concerns of
the people. 1t was not the tea tax the stamp act,
nor the Boston port bill that produced the revolu-
ton it was the threatened violation of this prin-
eiple so ominously expressed in the resolution
that Parliament had right to bind the colonies
in all cases whatsoever. Resistance to this arb-
trary usurpstion Of power patriotic ancestors
at once saw to be their plain duty. They did not
at first strike for independence but only for re-
pesl of this obnoxious resolution and concession
on the part Of parliament of the right of self
government in their own municipal affairs. Even
the monarchies of Europe acknowledged the cor
rectness of this principle by recognizing our in
dependence and Great Britain herself was at last
compelled to Acknowledge the justness of our
cause. Is this principle any less sacred now than
it was then shall we not be willing to grant to
the inhabitants OF territories the same rights that
we as colonies demanded of the mother country?
The constitution G YES to congress the right of
general supervision of the territories, such as dis
posing of the lands. organizing the governments
but challenge any one to point out an article in
that instrument investing congress with the pow
er OF regulating the internal polity of the people
of the territories
Suppose that the inhabitants of the slave states
should claim that congress had a right to legislate
slavery into the territories, would not every man
at once deem it an unwarrantable assumption. If
congress has not the power to establish slaverv,
has it the power to prohbt slavery? l can see
no reason why congress has not the same legal
right to legisate slavery into the territories that
it has to prohibit it. The fact is congress has no
right to Interfere in the local regulations relating
to master and servant, any more than it has that
OF husband and wife, or parent and child.
There is class of politicians that contend that
congress has the right to refuse admission into the
Union of any new states unless slavery is prohibit
ted by their constitutions. Now, l believe the
language of the constitution is that new states
may be admitted to the Union upon an equal foot
ing with the original states and, since portion
of those states tolerated slavery and another por
ticn did not. how can new states be admitted upon
sa equal footing with the or gnal thirteen, unless
they are allowed to control their internal affairs.
The constitution provides only this condition, no
Q her can be tolerated. BY what right then do VIC
place restrictions upon new states coming into the
Union, that the older states were not subject to-
Tie constitution guarantees to every state a re-
publican form Of government. Can that be so,
which will not allow the people to regulate their
own municipal affairs?
The right of selfgovernment can be confirmed
by no power whatever. it exists everywhere in
herent in the breast of man. Congress cannot
confer it upon the people of the territories nor
deprive them Of its full exercise 1t is theirs by
the inherent right of sovereignty. But waving
for the time. the principle of right let US examine
the result of a establishment of the Missouri
line. If this line is reestabshed prohibiting sla
very north of $50 3O', by implication slavery is
permitted south of that line. then the result is
simply this: the people south of an imaginary
line enjoy privilege granted by legislation that
is denied by the same legislation to the people
north of that line There may he justice and i'm
partiality in this but confess my inability to
it, If the principle of selfgovernment is correct
south of that line, why not north of it? But say
these zeaots. the destruction of that line permits
slavery north of it. Well, why not tell the whole
story. and say it also permits free labor south Of
it,
A B. G.