Weekly national intelligencer., 1857-06-27

degrees thirty minutes sell them to the Indians
all must agree the third article of the treaty would mot
have protected him from indictment under the of
Congress Of March 30, 1902, q Stat at Large l39
adopted and extended to this Territory by the
March 26, 1901, e Stat. at Large, 2S3 rs
Besides, whatever rights secured we're individual
rights fCongress should pass any law which violated
such rights of any individual and those rights of
such character be within the lawfn control
Of Congress under the Constitution that individual could
complain and theact of Congress to such rights Of
his would be imperative but it would be valid and in
operative to all other whose individual rights
did not under the protection of the treaty. And
inasmuch as 1t does not appear that any nhabant of
Louisiana whose rights secured by treaty had been
injured it would be wholly inadmssibe for this
to assume hrst, that one such may have
existed and, second, that if any did exist the entire
law void only those cases. ii any in which
it could not rghully operate but all wholly
unconnected with the treaty in which such law could
rightfuly operate.
But it is quite unnecessary in my opinion pursue
this inquiry further because clearly appears from
language of the article and it has been decided by this
court that the stipulation temporary and ceased to
have any effect when the then inhabitants of the Terri
tory of Louisiana, in whose behalf the stipulation was
made, were incorporated into the Union.
In the cases of New Orleans De Armas ct al 20
Peters, 223 the question whether title proper
y which existed the date of the treaty continued to
be protected by the treaty after the State of Louisiana
was admitted to the Union. The third article of the
treaty was relied Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said
that Louisiana shall be into the Union as soon as
possible equal footing the other States and the
ohe that till such admission, the inhabitants the ceded
territory shall be protected in the free enjoyment their
liberty property and religion Had any OF these rights
been violated while these pulaons continued in force the
individual supPosing himself to be injured might have
brought his into this under the twenty section
of the judicial But stipulation ceased to
when Louisiana became member of the Union and its in
haoans were admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights
advantages and immunes of citizens the United States
The cases of Chouteau o. Marguerite az Peters, 5O0
and Permo .. New Orleans (3 How, 5S9) are in con-
formity with this view of the treaty.
10 convert this temporary stipulation of the treaty in
behalf of French subjects, who then inhabited small
portion of Louisiana into permanent restriction upon
the power of Congress to regulate territory then in
habted and assert that not only restrans Congress-
from affecting the rights of property of the then nha
bants but enabled them and all other citizens of the
United States to go into any part of the ceded territory
with their slaves and hold them there is construction
of this treaty opposed its natural meaning and SO
far beyond its subject and the evident design of
the parties, that cannot assent to it. In my opinion
this treaty has no bearing the present question
For these am of opinion that so much of the
several acts of Congress prohibited slavery and nvo
untary seryifude within that part of the Territory of
Wisconsin lying north of thrty-six degrees thirty mi
nutes north latitude and west of the river Mississippi
were constitutional and valid laws
have expressed my opinion and the reasons therefor
at far greater length than could have wished upon the
different questions which have found it to
pass to arrive at judgment the bar These
questions numerous, and the grave Importance of
some of them required to exhibit fully the grounds
of my opinion. | have touched no question which, in
the view have taken, it not absolutely necessary
Tor me to pass upon to ascertain whether the judgment
of the circuit court should stand be reversed have
avoided no question on which the validity Of that udg
ment depends To have done either or less would
have been inconsistent with my views of my duty
In my opinion the judgment of e circuit should
De reversed and the cause remanded for trial