The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-03-20

all question, the right thus to prohibit and ex-
:clude it.
This view of the authority of Congress over
the Territories of the United States is sustained
I by other clauses of the Constitution. In the
ninth section of the FIRST article, it is declared
that I" the migration or importation of such
persons as any of States nosc existing may think
proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Con-
gress prior to the year 1905" This is not a
grant of power. On the contrary, it is restric-
| ton imposed upon power assumed to exist
The language of the clause takes it for granted
| that Congress had power to prohibit the migra-
ton and the importation of slaves power
doubtless conferred by the authority Ito regu-
late commerce with foreign nations and among
| the several States for, whether slaves are to
be regarded as persons or as property, COM
merce of necessity relates to both. This clause
of the Constitution, therefore, imposes upon the
authority of Congress to prohibit the migration
or importation OF slaves specific and limited
restriction-namely, that this power should not
be exercised over any of the States then existing,
prior to the year 1903. Over any State not
then existing, and, by still stronger implication,
over any Territories of the United States, the
exercise of its authority was unrestricted and
| it might prohibit the migration or importation
of slaves into them, at any time, in its own dis
erection.
| Nor do any considerations connected with
alleged rights of property in slaves contravene
the existence or the exercise of this authority.
The Constitution does not recognise slaves as
property, in any instance, or to any extent In
the~clause already cited, they are called "per-
sons" In the clanse respecting their escape into
other States, they are to be returned not prop
erty, but as "persons held to service or labor"
| An in fbo NORTH ont nf pfafio ON
and of direct taxes, it is provided by the Con-
stitution that to the whole number of free per-
sons are to be added three-ffths of all other
"persons." In all its provisions which have
reference to slaves, they are described and re-
garded as persons. The idea of their being
property is carefully and Intentionally exclu-
ded. If they are property at all, therefore, it
is not by virtue of the Constitution, but of
local laws, and only within their jurisdiction.
The local laws of any State are excluded from
the Territories of the United States, by the ne.
cessity of the case as well as by the exclusive
sovereignty conferred upon Congress.
/ The Plea of Popular Sovereignty.
Failing thus to establish the right of the
stakeholder to carry his slaves as property, by
virtue of the Constitution, into territory belong
| ing to the United States, the slaveholding in
terest has been compelled to claim, for the in.
habitants of the Territories themselves, the
right to provide for excluding or admitting Sla-
very, as a right inherent in their sovereignty
over their own affairs. This principle of pop
ular sovereignty, as it is styled, was embodied
in the bills for organizing New Mexico and
| Utah, and is made the substitute for the pro-
hibition of Slavery in the Missouri Compro-
mise which it repealed and the slaveholling
interest is now sustained by the Federal Gov
eminent in this new position, as it has been in
all the positions it has successfully assumed.
The principle of popular sovereignty is funda-
mental in our institutions. No one doubts that
the people are sovereign over all the Terrific
ries, as well as over all the States of the Con-
| federacy. But this sovereignty is subject to
limitation and definition, and can only exist
within the limitations of the Constitution. The
| People are sovereign in the House of Repre-.
| sentatives; but their sovereignty may be over
| ruled by the Senate, or defeated by the veto of
the President. The States are sovereign but
| only within certain limits, and in subordination
| to the sovereignty of the nation. Two sover-
| eighties over the same country and on the same
subject, it is manifest, cannot co-exist; one must
of necessity exclude the other. But the Con.
| stitution, In express and unmistakable terms,
makes Congress sovereign over the Territories,
| by comforting upon it power to make "dU need
| tul rules and regulations respecting them." The
doctrine OF popular sovereignty in the people of
the Territories finds no warrant or support in
the Constitution. In the language of Mr.. Cal
houn, "it involves an absurdity; if the sover-
eighty over the Territories be in their inhabit-
ants, instead of the United States, they would
cease to be Territories of the United States the
moment we permit them to be inhabited" So
long as they remain Territories, they are the
possession and under the exclusive dominion
| of the United States; and it is for the General
Government to make such laws for them as
| their welfare, and that of the nation, may re-
quire.
We deny that Congress may abdicate por-
ton of its authority, and commit to the inhabit
ants of Territory power conferred upon it by
the Constitution. Such an abdieation is an
abandonment of duty, and cannot be justified
on the pretended principle of popular sovereign
ty. That principle, indeed, is discarded in the
very act OF Congress in which it is claimed to
be embodied. If sovereignty exists, It must be
| exercised through the organized departments of
Government-the Legislative, executive, and ju-
dicial. But the act to organize the Territories
of Kansas and Nebraska prescribes the requi-
sites of citizenship and the qualifications of
voters, confers upon the President and Senate
the appointment Of Governor, who is clothed
with the veto power, and of Judges by whom
the common law shall be interpreted. Each
department of the Government thus rests virtu-
ally in the power of the President of the United
States. To style the small remnant of power
which such a law leaves to the people popular
sovereignty" is an abuse of language, and an
insult to common sense. Yet even this has
been efectually destroyed, by the invasion of
armed men, sustained by the General Govern
ment in their high-handed endeavor to force
Slavery into Kansas, against the will of the hardy
settlers who have made it their home
This whole system of doctrine by which Sla-
very seeks possession of the Territories of the
United States, either by asserting the sovereign
ty of their inhabitants, or by denying the power
of Congress to. exclude and prohibit Slavery
from them, is move, and alien to the principles
and the administration of our Government.
Congress has always asserted and exercised the
right of prohibition. 1t was exercised by the
vote of the First Congress, in 1889, reaffirming
the ordinance of the old Confederacy by which
Slavery was prohibited fyom the Territory north
west OF the Ohio river. 1t was exercised in
1920, in the prohibition of Slavery from the
Louisiana Territory north of go 30/. 1t was
exercised in l948, when Slavery was prohibited
from the Territory of Oregon.
Nor is il in the least degree impaired by the
argument that these Territories, when they be-
come States, and are admitted into the Union,
can establish or prohibit Slavery, in their dis
erection. Their rights as Ststes do not begin
until thei; Obligations as Territories end. The
Constitution knows nothing of inchoate States"
Congress has power to make "all needful rules
and regulations" for them as Territories, until
they are admitted into the Union az members
Of the common Confederacy.
General Tendency Of Federal Legislation on the
Subject of Slavery.