Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1857-04-02

under the Constitution to establish a National
Bank. In 1915 Congress passed bill to es-
tablish bank. lie vetoed the bill on oblec-
tons other than constitutional. In his mes
sage, he speaks as wise statesman, as fol-
lows; Waving the question of the constl-
tutional authority Of the legislature to estab-
fish an incorporated bank, as being precluded,
in my judgment, by the repeated recognltons
under varied circumstances of the validity OF
such an institution in acts of the legislative.
executive and judicial branches Of the gov
eminent, accompanied by indications in differ
ent modes, of concurrence Of the general
will of the action" Has this impressive les
son of practical wisdom become lost to the
present generation .
If the great and fundamental principles OF
our government are never to be settled, there
can be no lasting prosperity. The Constltu-
ton will become floating waif on the bill
lows of popular excitement.
The prohibition Of slavery north Of 81 deg
80 min, and of the state of Missouri, con-
tanned in the act admitting that state into
the Union, was passed by vote Of l34, III
the House of Representatives, to AZ. Before
MIR. Monroe signed the act, it was submitted
by him to his cabinet, and they held the re-
striction of slavery in ii territory to be within
the constitutional powers of Congress. 1t
would be singular, if in 1904 Congress had
power to prohibit the introduction of slaves
into Orleans territory from any other part Of
the Union, under the penalty of freedom to
the slave, if the same power, embodied in the
Missouri Compromise could not be exercised
ia 1920.
But this law of Congress, which prohibits
slavery north OF Missouri and Of &c deg. &c
80 min, is declared to have been null aid
void by my brethren. And this opinion is
founded mainly, on the distinction drawn be-
tween the ordinance of 1887 and the Missou
ri Compromise line. In what does the dis
tinction consist? The ordinance. it is said
was compact entered into by the confeder
ated states before the adoption Of the Consti
tuition, and that in the cession of territory
authority was given to establish territorial
government
1t is clear that the ordinance did not 60 in
, to operation by virtue Of the authority o
the Confederation but by reason Of its modi
: Hcation and adoption by Congress under thu
constitution. 1t seems to be supposed in thu
opinion of the court that the articles OF ces
sion placed it on different footing from ter
, ritories subsequently acquired. | am unable
to perceive the force OF this distinction. Tina
, the ordinance was intended for the govern
ment of the Northwestern territory, and wa
: limited to such territory, is admitted. L
= was extended to southern territories witt
: notifications by acts of Congress, and t.
t some Northern territories. But the ordinanc
, was made valid by the act Of Congress- an
, without such act could have been OF no force
: 1t rested for its validity on the act Of Con
t gress, the same, in my opinion, as the Mis-
: souri, Compromise line.
S If Congress may establish a territorla
n government in the exercise Of its discretion
!. it is clear principle that court cannot COZ
n troll that discretion. This being the case,
$ do not see on what ground the act is held
j. be void. 1t did not purpolt to forfeit prope
t ty Or take itafor public purposes 1t onl
l. prohibited slavery, in doing which it followe
e the ordinance of 1887.
v will now consider the fourth head, whic
e is !" The effect of taking slaves into a state {
|, territory, and 50 holding them, where SLAYER
o is prohibited"
IL IF the principle laid down in the case
If Prigg agt. the State Of Pennsylvania, is
# be maintained, and it is certainly to be mai
n Isssie.E unTlr oserfuied, is INC law Of tn
court, there can be no difficulty on this poir
Of In that case the court say "the state of slav
Is ry is deemed to be mere municipal regul
G. ton, founded upon and limited to the ram
Of Of the territorial laws" If this be so, sav
4 ry can exist nowhere except under the authc
h, ity Of law, founded on usage having the for
l. of law, or by statutory recognition. Al
" the court further say, at is manifest fro
le this condition, that if the Constitution HI
S, not contained the clause requiring the reno
h ton Of fugitives from labor, every non-slay
G. holding state in the Union would have be-
lie at liberty to have declared free all runaw;
l. slaves coming within its limits, and to ha
es given them entire immunity and proteeti
ID against the claims Of their masters"
at Now if a slave absconds, he may be !
y, claimed but if he accompany his mastt
IL into state or territory where slavery of pr
~ hibited such slave cannot be said to have Il
s.; the service of his master, where his servic
us were legalized. And if slavery be limited
ly the range OF the territorial laws, how C
IS the slave be coerced to serve in state or t.
to ritory, not only without the authority Of la
We but against its express provisions? VII
lis gives the master the power to control the W
'e- of his slave? The local Wv, which exists
ny some form. But where there is no s,l
law, can the master control the will of t
"a slave by force? Where no slavery exis
IDS the presumption, without regard to color,
in favor Of freedom. Under such jurisd
lte ton, may the colored man be levied on as {
lin property of hie master by creditor?
as the docease OF the master, does the slave
TO- seend to his heirs as property? Can
al, master sell him? Any one or all of thu
nd acts may be done to the slave, where he
,ty legally held to service. But where the |
ch does not confer this power it cannot be ex
he cised.
co, Lord Mansfield held that slave brous
he in England was free. Lerd Stowell agrt
les with Lord Mansfield in this respect and Il
the slave could not be coerced in Englan
he but on her voluntary return to Antigua,
i've place of her slave domicil her former sta
If attached. The law of England did not p
or hibt slavery, but did not authorize it. I
To- jurisdiction which prohibits slavery is mt
lp- stronger in behalf of the slave within it til
18th only where it does not authorize it.
ION BY virtue of what law is that master m
ION take his slave into free territory and ex
lis from him the duties of slave? The law
Try the territory does not sanction it. No
Iu- thorjtv can he claimed under the Constitut