Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1856-06-05
The power of Congress over the Do
mestic Institutions of the Terri-

eiHeht' LUIS Is tle Ola story. lie iurtnei
more counsels submission to acts of tn
Missouri: mob, and says there is remedy
meaning, doubtless, the ballot-box. w
have better opinion of, Capt. Hsaton, ,ha
to suppose that lie thinks for moment tina
The Free State men of Kansas have it il
their power to vote ssirly on this question il
Kansas. They have thrice been driver
from the polls, their ballot boxes stolen oy
ruffiaHs from another State, and their terri
tory is now overrun, one of their cities de-
stroyed, and number of them murdered.
Butwe rely upon the knowledge our peo
ole have of Kansas history, 20 refute all such
charges against Free Kansas.
The Gazette further says
"The ultima te power of government is in the
hands OF the people, even TO the amending, altering
yes, aboiIshinl he C"nsii tuiion ITSELF and there
to re all torclle resistance is nothing but treason
and rebellion "
Yet you refuse to admit tie people oi
Kansas, who have formed a Constitution
and ask admission into the Union. How
will you reconcile these two positions,
The Gasftte goes on and demolishes an
opinion of Judge Story on the power OF
Congress over the Territories. sAs we are
somewhat anxious to Know what Judges of
the Supreme Court are reliable and what
are not, we ask him to give his opinion of
the following from Mr. Justice Marshall,
which BY the Nay he has not seen although
we have quoted it twice.
"They 1.-THE people of Florida do not,
"however, PARTICIPATE IN POLITIC.
AL POWER; THEY DO NOr SHARE
IN THE GOVERNMENT UNTIL
FLORIDA SHALL BECOME A STATE,
Is this law. Captain, or notl One Chief
ustce per week, is as much os you can
"chaw",up.
We stated what we did in reference ia
John C.. Calhoun's opinion of the Missouri
Compromise on The authority of speech
in Congress, and which was not disputed
We also gave another expression which fell
rom MIR. Calhoun, and which he has not vet
seen, although we have quoted it twice. In
speaking of the assumption that The inhab-
tants and not Congress should rule in the
Territories he pronounced that assumption
utterly unfounded, unconstitutional, without
example. and contrary to the entire practice
of the government, from its commencement
'to the present time" This is matter of re-
.ord
The Gazette further says:-
.But again it is aid that .In 1900 the ueopIe ofI
indiana Territory. petitioned Congress to allow
hem 10 rs abliS!I Slavery in their Territory. and
nat Mr.. Randolph, then chairman OF the Commit.
'e on Territories. reported against the petition,
nd Congress refused to grant it." Well, does no;
lat prove, As tar as it proves any thing, exactly
hat We have heretofore said, that non. .interyen
on was the unltGTn practice Ct the government
u The first thirty years OF is existence If 'reIus.
on the part ot Congress 10 interpose, when petit
oHet 10 do so, To change the status Of tile terri |
rT, Is not n-intcrveniion. then are at loss
know what L. C1nIr 81 dii oriGterve1c in this |
,se, aud yot the Editor calls this refusal nteryen
on and addu es 1t rs evidence oprove that Con-
'ess possesses the very power refuses to exercise
1his we regard as the monster absurditv
the whole article. A people petition for
ongress 10 allow them to establish slavery, {
nd Congress refuses their petition, and I
lis, in democratic parlance is called non (
Intervention is defined bv
|ebster 10 mean "any interference tha:
ay affect the interests of others" Now
it is true as tie Black Democracy claim
at Congress has no right whatever on this
after. then did Congress interfere, and 9
at interference did ''aifect the interests
Indiana, and was there fore intervention. d
In answer TO the Gasette's question, we
ply ''categorical'y," as he desires. that II
avery IS an unmitigated evil, and does not
list any where by fright" Congress, d
erefoIe has no right whaeve to institute u
lvery-neither have the people of a terri q
y. In this connection we ask the editor Oh
the Gasette, (and to the question we de- o'
e categorical and candid answer") if W
believes the people of any State or any III
rritory have the right to institute Slavery !"
to hold their fellow men in bondage, In
We are told, furthermore, that "the Or lie
lance of 1887 fixed the status of the os
nth Western Territory in relation to eo
very before Congress had an existence" a
ue, but that Ordinance was not one whit ci
re binding nor irrepealable than the Mis-
ri Compromise which was recently re- WI
lied. The same power which confined the tle
dinance of 1887, in 1889, could have re- mi
lied, aye, and would have repealed it had Pi
'een unconstitutional. This is no an de
er to the overwhelming evidence of these rel
Is. If the Missouri Compromise should Pl'
repealed SO should the Ordinance of wi
z.
n reply to our question in relation to the LII
lission OF Utah, &C., he says he is not VIII
ling to admit Utah upon any footing at
says:- y
The constitution guarantees to no man more tin
one wife, but guarantees to him as many
rs as he chooses to own The subject of sIav. "e'