Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1857-01-03

bill. Now, SIT, may 8utntG tue Senteulah pIOust-
| ses-I do admit that some persons maintain the
opinion that the Legislature of Territory can pro-
hbit slavery, whilst others maintain that it cannot;
but that is not because of any difference OF con-
struction placed the BILL but only difference OF
opinion as to how judicial question, arising not
under the bill, bu: under the Constitution OF the
United States will be decided by the Supreme Court
The bill leaves the people "free to regulate their
own domestic institutions in their own way, subject
only to the Constitution of the United States The
friends of the bill all agree that this clause releases
the Territories, regards their domestic nstitutons'
from congressional control, but leaves them to oe
| controlled by the Constitution. They agree tnat
| they are authorized to regulate them not only III
| such MANNER but also ut such time, as may not De
| inconsistent with the Constitution. And they agree
that if question arises either as to the
any particular regulation, as to the competency OF
the Legislature to make it, it is judicial question
to 90 to the courts and be decided not by reference
to the BILL for the bill contains nothing about it. but
| according to the principles OF the Constitution up
| to this point there is disagreement among the
friends of the BILL and all agree that at this point
| the bill stops.
The question remaining to be decided is, whether,
according to the principles of Constitution, a
Legislature Especially Of inchoate Territory can
| make fundamental regulations. abolishng existing
rights of property already vested in individuals un-
der State constitutions. admit that on this point
there difference OF opinion but all willing to
abide by the decision Of the Supreme Court; and as
the Kansas and Nebraska bill throws no light on it.
and pretended to decide it. the gentleman from
Kentucky might as we'll charge US with differing in
our construction of act referring case to the
Court of Claims because we may differ in opinion
as to how the Court ought to decide the case.
Gentlemen on the other side ask us tauntingly
what opinion the President elect entertans on these
points. I undertake to say, without having any
special knowledge the subject, that he construes
the Kansas and Nebraska bill as I and all other De-
construe it. What opinion he entertains on
the judicial question: do not know it is not impor.
tant for the country to know; and gentlemen are
probably doomed to remain in ignorance as the Ex-
ecutive is restrained by the fundamental principles
of our Government from endeavoring to influence,
by the intrusion of his opinions and wishes, the ac-
ton of the judicial department on question pend
ing, or likely to be brought before it.
can tell gentlemen, however, what think the
Supreme Court will decide; and we have been so
emphatically challenged from the other side, feel
no hesitation in doing So If the result should prove
to be in error, it will only prove me to be, what
the clients of much better lawyers have often to
their sorrow found them to be- faliible in my judg
ment of the law. My opinion is, that the Supreme
Court will decide that the establishment of what
shall be, and what shall not be, property-who shall
be citizens and who shall be Slaves is part Of the
original compact under which individuals enter into
| society that that original compact must prccede
and does create government, of which Legislature
is but OF the parts; that this original compact
y,
sent of, the individuals composing the society in
their separate, original. sovereign character. In
England it is unwrtten and undigcsted. 1t is found
in Magma Charta and the Bill of Rights; resting in
traditions and alluded to in acts of Parliament:
IONS announced by popular leaders and embalmed
by popular approval; the tumutuouS demands of
rebellious masses, and the reluctant assent of hum
bled kings-all spread through tie history of a
thousand years. Such is the original compact Of
England, unwritten and unsubscribed, yet known to
her statesmen and binding to her rulers.
This shadowy and mythical thing is the original
compact establishing the rights of property and the
relations of man to man. and the Parliament of
England, the Supreme Legislature of the Kingdom,
dares not alter one of its provisions usurp of
the prerogatives of those who established it. In
the United States the original compact is set forth
in written Constitutions, accurately and exactly
setting forth the powers to be exercised by Govern
ment, by the Legislature by the Executive, and by
the Judciary-whch with constitute the Gov
eminent. The basis of our whole system of repub-
licanism, is, that powers not specially granted
reserved to the people, and that changes Of the
fundamental policy of State can only be made by
the people themselves in their sovereign capacity,
through representatives specially elected for that
purpose. No one has attributed to Legisla-
ture in this country sovereignty. right to do
what it wills After the Constitution has declared
that particular object-as land-shali be subject
to be appropriated property, it is the province Of
the Legislature to provide rules for its appropra-
ton to regulate the incidents ofsuch appropriation
and to protect and secure the possessor in it's
joyment. But the Legislature that should assume
to declare that land should longer BE- appropriate
ed to the separate use OF individuals but should be
free as air to every one who should choose to get
upon it, would be laughed at as aiming to trans
cend its powers Legislature cannot, except on
special grant of power in Constitution, exercise
any of those powers usually considered as making
up the aggregate of sovereignty, much less can il
CONTROL and rpUulnte NJ SIC ~
of property, the establishment of which is suppos-
ed to be the first act Of man indicating that lie is
emerging from barbarsm.
may be reminded that States of the Union have
abolished slavery by legislative enactments Such
enactments by States may be constitutional in.
cline to the opinion that they not, where the
constitution of the State does not specially grant
power But the assumption of such power by
the Legislature OF sovereign State, (sovereign as
to its domestic concerns,) deriving its authority
from Constitution framed by the people, might be
sustained without its following that the same power
belongs to Territorial Legislature which derives
its exlstance and all its powers from act of Con-
gress, constitutes part of government never sane.
TONED by the people, confessedly temporary in its
character and liable to be altered or abolished at
any moment by act Of Congress, and possessing
more of sovereignty, and less of independence than
an ordinary moneyed corporation.
That such body possesses power to annul
rights OF property acquired and held under the COM
mon law and constitutions of fifteen States of the
Union, appears to me proposition too monstrous
to be entertained for moment in nation not pre-.
pared to revert to barba,ism and anarchy.
This is not question Of the respective powers
OF the State and Federal Cover nments. 1t is ques
ton OF the relative and respective power Of the
Legislature on the one side, and the sovereign peo-
pie on the other 1t is conflict between the con.
stItutlon'naking powers and the law-making power
On the one side are stability, security, conser-
vat!sm; on the other are change, chaos, and ag-
| rarianism.