Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1857-08-20
mo. IL.

VIII any gentleman OF the other side please
correct me? Hearing no objections, | con-
clude | am correct
First then, as to the constitutional pow
' er OF congress to restrict slavery in the ter
E rltorics. The opinions and acts Of the
makers OF the constitution, to which have
already referred, show on which side of the
: question they stand and with this passing
remark leave them in peace and proceei
, to examine the opinions of distinguished
men OF our own times. / will read from
the 3S4th page, vol. l, of Chancellor Kent's
Commentaries, whose opinions and reputa.
tion as jurist are known and RESPECTED
not only IN THIS country, but in Europe.
He says:
"With respect to the vast territories belonging
tothe United States, and which are not distinct DO.
htica societies, known TO the constitution AS STATES
Congress has assumed to exercise over them sU-
IRENE powers of sovereignty. EXCLUSIVE and un-
limited pocr Of legislation IS nen 10 them by the
constitution and sanctioned byjuficial decisions"
Sir, what does "supreme power of leeis-
iatlon here mean? Why, sir, by the con
struction of modern democracy, it means
the power to do everything except the ex-
clusion of a negro slave from the territoryl
This is what supremacy here means. Yer
lily, If this is SO, the progressive locomo-
tion of the ''sable chattles' is above all
law and constitution. But the Supreme
Court, that arbiter which the constitution
itself has set up as its oracle and oxpound-
er, and to which all must do reverence, has
decided that Congress has UNLIMITED power
to legisate for the territories. That Court
has said that Congress has all the power of
Legislation in the territories, that a State
Legislature has within its own jurisdic-
ton.
Now, ifthis be true, and still Congress
cannot exclude slavery from the territory,
what becomes of their darling "souATrER
SOVEREIGNTY" with which they have led
many honest men astray?
But they tell us on this floor that tho
Supreme Court has recently decided in the
'Dred Scott" case, that the restriction of
slavery north of thirty-six thirty, was un-
constitutional, and ask us if we will not a.
bidc the decision. answer, we will bow
in humble submission to the decision of
that court, whether right or wrong. We
profess to recognize the supremacy of the
law, as expounded by the highest judicial
authority, until reversed by competent au-
thority. Why have not the gentlemen on
the other side of this House been willing
to do the same thing heretofore, under the
decisions to which have referred?
But, sir, have seen no authentic report
of the ''Dred Scott" case, and i don't be-
lieve that the Supreme Court has decided
the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.
L cannot believe it possible that the ermine
has become thus prostituted TO political SUBJ
Serviency! But if it be true, we will mod
estly yield to the powers that be, and in the
language of a distinguished gentleman who
spoke upon this floor the other night, 1--WE
will move for a new trial"
This much, sir, for the JUDICIARY on this
point. Let us now see what were the opin-
ions of some Of the most distinguished dem
ocrats, previous to 1854.
The late James X. Polk, in q speech i'm
Franklin Co., Tenn, used this language in
reference to the power Of Congress over the
territories:
at is obvious to every mind, that the power to
egisate over the territories of the United States
mnst reside somewhere, and where can il be lodged
except, first, in the inhabitants of the territories or
Y
the United Statcs7
L. 1t cannot be lodged in the inhabitants of III,
territories, while they remain territories Because.
ifit lodged in the inhabitants of the territories
they are at once by that fact longer territories
butsoyereign States; for the right to make lava
Is the hrst and highest prerogativeto sovereignty
=. 1t cannot be vested in the several States nor
the people of the several States
8. Then 1t follows of necess sity that this power
was lodged by the theory and the Consf aion of our
government, in the United STATES"
This, sir, is good ''black Republican
doctrine! Was it not good orthodox De-
mocracy, till the birth of the Kansas Ne
braska bill?
The Honorable James Shields of Illinois,
in the Senate of the Cnited States in 1850,
in speaking upon this subject, refers to the
Democratic resolutions, which | have
read you from the statutes of 1S49. He
said:
''Thc State of Illinois, which have the honor in
part to represent has thought proper to give me in
'tructions for my guidance and government on the
subject of slavery in the territories regard the
Will OF my State when fairly expressed, politi
u trust which it is not my duty to discharge in good
alth, lflt can be done without any violation OF the
constitution ofmy country. The Legislature of H.
nois insrncts me to vote for the application of the
w lim0t frovlso TO all the territories acquired by
he late with Mexico. These iasfraefSons
'onsidtr Constitutional, and such, it is my duty to
,bey them. In my HURDLE opinion the Congress of
he United States has full poccr and authority to gov
srn all the territories, including the District ofCo
umba. in all respects whatever including the intro
lucton, and the exclusion of Slavery, subject to no
i'm itation restriction"
Sir, this is stronger than we preach
Unless Gen. Shields is metarlorphosed
nto the Cincinnati Platform, would he not
make VERY black Republican?
Twill now close this branch of the SUBJ !.
ect with one other reference to the Dem
'cratic authorities on this point.
When the Missouri Compromise Bill
vas presented to President Monroe for his
Signature, after its passage by both houses
# Congress, he submitted the question of
IS constitutionality to his Cabinet, among
whom was the distinguished John C. Cal
loun. That Cabinet with unanimous
'oicc reported the bill strictly constitute
nal, and Mr.. Monroe signed it, and it be-
anne the law of the lend, and it seemed to
ave become sscanonized in thu hearts Of the