Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-05-19
Hon. John Mclean.

IAOns SOmM IMCASCuhs
In an article published last week, on the
subject Of letter written by several members
Of Congress to Judge Leavitt Of Ohio, we In
cidentally stated that, as us understood Judge
McLea,a's opinions, we could readily have sup
ported him as candidate for the Presidency,
if he had been selected by the American Con-
vention, as we would have supported any other
gentleman of sound views on the American
question, and not sectional man on the ques-
ton of slavery. An article appeared in the
National htelligencer on the 22d day of De-
cember, 1917, which was attributed to Judge
Mclean, AID its paternity was never, SO far as
we know, denied by him, from which we de-
rived our opinions of the conservative charac-
ter of this gentleman on the dstracting subject
Of the power of Congress over slavery in the
Territories. We extract from that article as
follows:
admit that they (Congress) may organize gov
eminent which shall protect the lands purchased,
and provide for the administration of justice among
the settlers II does by no means follow that they
may establish slavery This is relation which
must be created by the local sovereignty It is
municipal regulation Of limited extent and neces-
sarily of an equally limited origin. II is domes-
TIC relation oper Wh;ch the Federal Government
exercise control. And, above all, tn insti-
tuition Of slavery Is not within any implication which
can be drawn from the power to regulate and dis
pose Of the public lands or other property Of the
United States"
The above is sound conservative doctrine,
and manifests the right spirit, as well as Just
view of this distracting question. The pith
and marrow of this extract is contained in the
words, ait is domestic relation over which
the Federal Government can exercise no con-
troll" Such judicial decision, If made by the
highest judicial tribunal of the land, would de-
stroy fanaticism in month. II would put an
end to the continual din about slavery en-
croachmcnts, and slavery restrictions. Indeed,
1t would sanction and sustain, by judicial au-
thority, the Compromise measures of 1850,
and the 7th section of the American platform
But>what change has come over "the spirit
of his Dreams" since 1s47l Times have
changed, and he has changed with them. An
honorcd name il now wanted to head the hosts
Of fanaticism 1.-The Presidency is the highest
post Of honor opinions arc framed to suit the
occasion-sound views Of constitutional power
are thrown to the dogs--temptation is yielded
to-and he in whose purity of purpose, the
country has long reposed confidence, becomes
the victim Of insane political ambition.
Calling back the attention of our readers to
the foregoing extract from Judge McLean's
opinions in l847, declaring that slavery is q
domestic relation, over which the Federal Gov
ernment can exercise no CONTROL" we now
ask perusal of the following letter from Judge
Mclean, dated May 10, 1866. He says to Gen.
Cass
WASHINGTON May Is, 1856.
!. Mr. DEAR Sir A friend stated to me yesterday
that he understood you to say that did not con-
slider that Congress had power, under the consti.
tuition, to prohibit slavery in Territory. never
doubted that Congress had this power, and could
never have expressed any doubt on the subject
You may recoect that I have, in conversations
with you, often said that Congress, having the
power to establish aTenitorial government, might,
although they had constitutional power to insti-
tnte 1t.
| Informed my friend that was sure he misap-
pretended you. drop this note that in the pub
LEGATION of your speech you may correct any mistake
of the stenographer on this subject
Very truly, yours, JOHN MCLEAN.
Hon. L. CAss.
Now, then, compare the two declarations of
opinion---the first says Congress has "So CON.
rRoL" over the subject, and the latter says it
can prohibit but not institute slavery. That
just suits Giddings Greeley, and Company
It exactly fits their purposes The discrep-
ancy between the two declarations of opinion
is too apparent to require any further remark
on that point. But the police power look At
it. If Congress has the right to control"
any subject of police regulation, II is, to our
mind, simply absurd to contend, that II may
not regulate and control that subject in such
manner, as in its Judgment, will promote the
interests Of those over whom the police regula-
ton may operate.
Under the police poDer, we suppose Judge
Mclean would say, that Congress may pro-
hibit grog shops, public shows, billiard-saloons,
and the like. Well, grant the power. Sup
pose Congress should consider little Of the
ardent, useful in cold climate or in hot one
Suppose they should think public shows quite
entertaining, and well calculated to keep alive
a spirit Of checrfulncss, which itself promotes
happiness and health 7 And suppose they
should consider billiards healthy exercise for
young men? What then1 Would not Con-
gress have the right, under Judge McLcan's
police pop,r, to authorize themf Or would
Congress only have the right under the police
poeer, to do such things as Judge Mclean
would decide to be proper, At, and oxpedisnt
We apprehend that Congress either has this
police power IN full or not at all, and can exer.