The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1857-11-21

Il
Of Kentucky, who WIS member of Con-
gress at the time Of the passage Of the
Missouri Compromise, and having voted
for it, is writing a series Of articles, for
the National InteHyeacer, on the subject
Of the Missouri Compromise. In his
third paper he has the following argu-
ment, which we find in tie Chicago
Preu:
Tried by the Cons, tuition, and accor-
ding To all the foregoing considerations
and tests, tn coas,it ss!ouality Of the Mis-
souri, Compromi cannot, as | think, be
seriously denied or doubted But it is
moreover confirmed by inGis 2utabe an
thority, by successive and unquestioned
recognitions of the power by Congress,
by the people, and virtually by the courts
ever since the Inauguration Of the Con-
stitution, until since the late repeal of
the compromise act. Some of thess re-
eognitions will Be cited in the following
chronological order:
l. The Ordinance of 1887 having be-
come Intellectual without further legisla-
ton after the adoption of the Constitu-
tion, Congress, on the 7th of August,
1889, passed an act for the avowed pur-
pose of terminating the ordinance, 50 that
it may (might) have full effect If Con-
gress had no power to enact such an Or
dinance, it certainly had none to ealvan-
ise the paralytic of the Confederation
But the validity of that resuscitating
act Of Congress has, SO far as know, new
er been grsvely doubted.
2. The deed of cession, which coded
the title of North Carolina to the terrific
ry now the State of Tennessee, accepted
by Congress on the I'd of April, 1890,
after stipulating for the app icat on of the
Ordinance of 'S7 to that Territory, pro-
vided "that no regulation made or to be
made by Congress shall tend to enamel
pate slaves" Aud an act of Congress
for the Territory south Of the river Ohio,
passed May 20, 1870, recognized and rat
fled that proyiso.
3. In the cession Of Mississippi By
Georgia there was similar proviso.-
Aud the acts of April I, 1893, and of
May 10, 1900, 70. organizing the Terri
al government Of Mississippi, confined
tie same proviso.
These provisions do not prove that
Congress had power to prohibit slavery
in those Territories, but they do conduce
strongly to prove that all parties, under
the counsel Of the members of the FEEDER
u Convention which framed and of Mem
bers OF the State Conventions which
adopted the Constitution, coneured in
the opinion that Congress might eonst-
sutionally exercise such a power; and
this concurrent testimony OF the cvten.-
p,raneous construction is very persua-
sive.
T. The acts for organizing Territorial
governments in Indiana in 1890, IN
Michigan in 1905, in Illinois in 1909
re-enacted and applied to each Of them
the Ordinance Of 81, anti-slavcry clause
and a.. The validity Of these enactments
has never been cosiderately denied. But
if Congress had not the power now denied
by the President they were certainly NIL
unconstitutional aud void for if the or
dinance WIS valid the Confederate Con
gre.s hal power to adopt it if that Goa
eress had power, fortiori the Congress
Of the constitution had the power ard
II the Confederate Congress had not the
power. ali those acts Of Congress were in
egitable nulities unless Congress had the
constitutional power.
5. Tie act OF 1870 called the Missouri
Compromise.
6. The acts of Congress for organ
izing Territorial governments in Niscon-
sin, 10th of June; 1886, in Iowa, June
18th, 1888, and in Oregon, August 18th
1913, all applied the ordinance, with its
interdiet against slavery, to those Terri
tories, and the Oregon act was approved
by President Polk. with the concurrence
Of Cabinet of which President Buchan-
an was the leading member.
:. The resolution for annexine Texas
and iaterdieting slavery in portion Of
il.
Some Of these acts were approved by
President Washington, some by President
John Adams. some hy President Jefferson,
some By President Jackson, someby Pres
iient Van Buren,, some by President Fill
Lore; and all Of them, so far az we have
ever heard, were sanctioned without con-
stitutional difficulty or doubt BY the Con
crosses, the Presidents, the Cabinets,
and the people ; and surely, as the ordi-
nance did not itself apply to either Iowa
or Oregon, the application Of it by Con-
sre.s TO those trans Mississippian Terri
tories was unconstitutional unless Con-
gress had power to interdiet slavery
there.
Now, | conclude, l. That if as an orig
inal question, presented the first time for
consideration, the power of Congress to
prevent the Introduction If slavery over
which it has admitted Legislative author
ity, restricted only BY the limitations Of
the Constitution, il not constrnctively
clear on the face Of the constitution, il
cannot be clear that the only legislative
organ Of the people OF the United States
has any inherent Or constructive power
whatever over their common property or
their common interest
2. That, had the question Of power
been originally doubtful, it is now con-
clusiyely by practical construction, oft
repeated and undertaking for sixty years.
and Illustrated by all the most authorita-
tive elements Of wisdom and unanimity,
and time, in a degree uncxarnplcd in any
case in which, in the face of any sach
sanctions, judicial doubt has ever been
iatimated and, 3. That, if these recoc-
nitions have not eoncusiyely settled the
question of power, no such authority
can ever settle any question Of consti-