Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1857-02-06

make Gas they say all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory
and other property of the United States, !"
and to claim to derive the power under
that clause. They, in the first place,
nsisquote the tert, and then afterwards set
aside the clear and deliberate Judgment
of the highest court of this country.
This is nothing new to my colleague.
Though he may differ with the whole
South American party upon that point
yet he has been true to himself. From
the time first knew him he has been an
anti-slavery, Wilmot proviso, Missouri
restriction man. But l propose now, in
prssing along upon this branch, to ex-
anime the reasons which my colleague
has advanced heretofore upon this floor
to establish the constitutionality of the
Missouri restriction and the Wilmot pro-
viso. They are both based upon the
same idea-the idea that there is power
in Congress to limit or restrain slavery
in the Territories. | will do my colleague
the justice to say that he has never gone
to the extent of claiming the right tc
abolish it in the States.
And here, Mr.. Chairman, YOU will
perceive that the nature of the power is
the same in both cases. If Congress.
have no power to abolish slavery in tn,
States, because of the want of consti
tutional grant, there is the same want o
power in regard to the Territories. AnC
you have at last to fall back on some gen
eral proposition-some general derivativ,
power. My colleague says "that ther,
is no provision of the Constitution which
prohibits Congress from legislating OF
the subject of slavery in the Territories
and he defes any one to show him The
provision which forbids it," Where
sir, does my colleague get his notions O
constitutional law? Does he regard the
Congress of the United States as the
representatives of great Federal Gov
eminent, unrestrained in its power, ex-
cept by the limitations to be found in
the Constitution? You must look to the
Constitution for limitations of powers in
the States, because the States themselves
were, at the time of its formation, sove-
reign nationalities. But, do you look to
the Constitution to find out what are the
restricting powers so far as the General
Government is concerned. No, sir, you
look to see where the grant of power is
If there be an absolute grant of power,
then the Federal Government has the
power-otherwise it has not. Now, sir,
let me refer to the views of my colleague
Oil that point.
In 1S49, my colleague wrote certain
letters under the signature of Hampden-
letters of which he has acknowledged
himself to be the author advocating the
power of Congress to adopt the Wilmot
proviso. as well as the constitutionality
of the Missouri compromise of 1920. I
will read an extract from one of these
letters, to show what was the doctrine of
my colleague at that time
Snow, ] have never yet from any source. in
any discussion, by any effort, been able to get
any one opponent Of this power to Congress
Ito pass the Wilmot proviso to put his finger
on any clause of the Constitution which ex-
pressly, or by implication, forbids Congress to
exclude slavery from Territory"
Sir, is it possible that l have now to
meet with man so ignorant of consti-
tutional law as to claim power in Con-
gress to do anything and everything
which is not expressly prohibited by the
Constitution : Why, sir, even in the
days of blue-light Federalism, ! have
not been able to find the political writer
who claimed that this Federal Govern
ment was so far a unit as to possess all
power not expressly denied to it by the
limitations of the Constitution. thought
that we had been, before the adoption of
the Constitution, separate, distinct, and
independent sovcreignties. and that we
came into the Federal Union only for
specific purposes.
/ do not care to go, at this time, into
an elaborate examination Of this great
question Of the relative powers of the
Federal and State governments. The
subject has been already exhausted by
those who have preceded me. But !
must say that it is the first time / have
ever heard, from any man protesting to
be constitutional lawyer, that Congress
has all the powers Of Government, un-
less there are restrictions expressly TO be
found in its limitations. The reverse Of
this has always been considered as the
true exposition of the Federal compact.
There must be an absolute and unequivo-
cal grant Of power in the Constitution
itself; ana if there be no such grant.
then the power itself does not exist.
The Constitution, it is true, contains
limitations on the powers Of the States,
and, in some instances, limitations on
the powers of Congress; but in these
latter instances. they are always made tC
prevent a conclusion from foregoing
expressly granted power, and are de.
signed to prevent an enlargement of the
power granted by constructive implica.
tons.
Now, sir, when there is an express
grant in the Constitution, the powers for
carrying out that grant are as clearly
given as is the grant itself An implied
power to carry out grant is just as much
granted power as the original grant
itself. 1t is one of those things which,
being necessary and appurtenant to the
grant, must go along with the grant it.
self
feel no surprise at the course of my
colleague, when he maintains the doc
trine that Congress has the power to pass
the Wilmot proviso, or the Missouri re-
striction bill. II is no new doctrine with
him; he has maintained Il all his life,