The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1857-02-07

and confederate states. Consequently, tn
question of sovereignty" is here used decel
tively, by men who know that thine nam
of liberty the world has ever been enslaved.
Judge Story, in his able Commentarie
upon the Constitution, page 476 to AIS
says:
GAS the General Government possess tn
right to acquire territory, either by conques
or treaty, it would seem to follow as an in
evitable consequence, that it possesses tn
power to govern what it has SO acquired. Tn
territory does not, when SO acquired, becom
entitled to self-government, and it is N t sub
ject to the jurisdiction of any state. 1t mus
consequently be under the dominion and ju
ris diction of the Union, or it would be with
out any government at ALL" Again,
"They do not participate in political pow
er, nor can they share in the powers of tn
general government until they become
State, and are admitted into the Union Al
such. Until that period, the territory re
mains subject to be governed in such man
ner as Congress shall direct, under the CLAUSE
now under consideration"
mo one has ever doubted the authority o
Congress to erect territorial governments
within the territory of the United States
under the general language of the clause
"To make all needful rules and regulations
Indeed, with the ordinance Of 1877 in the
very view of the trainers as well as the peo
pie of the States, it is impossible to doubt
that such power was deemed indispensable
to the purposes of the cessions made by the
States.
"The power of Congress over the public ter
rtory is clearly exclusive anduniversal and
their legislation is subject to no ocontrol; bu,
is absolute and unlimited, unless so far as is
affected by stipulations in the cessions or by
the ordinance of 1887, under which any part
of it has been settled"
Mr.. Chancellor Kent, in the LIST volume Of
his Commentaries, page 384, says:
"With respect to the vast territories be-
longing to the United States, Congress have
assumed to exercise over them supreme pow
ers of sovereignty. Exclusive and unlimi-
ted power Of legislation is given to Con-
gress by the Constitution, and sanctioned by
judicial decisions"
See LIST. Peters Reports, Supreme Court
U. S., page 5ll, where this authority
is fully sustained.
Again, Mr.. Kent says (same page.)
"The general sovereignty existing in the
government of the United States over its
territories, is founded on the Constitution"
Again Congress adopted and applied the
principles of the ordinance of 1887 to the
territories. That ordinance was framed upon
sound and enlightened views of civil juris-
prudence"
And that ordinance contains the following:
"There shall be neither slavery nor invol-
untary servitude in said territory, otherwise
than in the punishment Of crimes, whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted"
Thus you see that Congress commenced
the exercise of the power of legislating for
the Territories, even upon the slavery ques-
ton, previous to the adoption of the constitu-
ton.
Fortunately for our country, Congress
continued thus to legislate, up to the Kansas
epoch. "This legislation, (said Mr.. Kent in
the evening of his days. has hitherto been
exercised in wisdom and good faith" I
would to God that as much could now be
said.
"All admit" says Chief Justice Marshall,
4 Wheaton, p. 422, "the constitutionality of
territorial government" Mr.. Marshall
here alludes to that class of territorial gov
ernments, now declared by certain political
jurists to be unconstitutional. No one can
doubt but what the Kansas Act, in so far as
it processes to sub-let the power conferred
upon Congress by the constitution to SNAKE
all needful rules and regulations" to the ter
ritorial legislature, is void. The doctrine Of
principal and agent, may well be applied to
this case. The constitution appoints Con-
gress its agent to snake a needful rules"
&C., for the territories. Congress shrinks
from the discharge of this duty, and appoints
as its agent the people of Kansas. Here is
certainly the agent of an agent, the deputy
of deputy.
am not prepared to believe that this &C.
ton was legal, or that any good can result
from it much evil certainly has.
The action of Congress above cited, even
in applying the slavery restriction to the
Territories, has received the solemn sanction
of the Supreme Court, and of all depart
ments of our government, up to the Kansas
experiment. This prohibitory clause, was
drawn by Mr.. Jefferson; is older han the
constitutions; has received the commentator
of most of our ablest jurists and statesmen
such as Nathan Dane, John Marshall, James
Madison, and Silas Wright. But why con
sumo time in arguing cause where all the
justice, reason and authorities are on one
side?
Reference is here made to the case o.
Worcester VS.. the State of Georgia, 6 Peters
SIS. Martin VS.. Hunter, 1st Wheaton, 3O4
City of Chicago vs.. U. S., Howard, 1876
Peters, 522; IL Wheaton, 27O; Dallas
1856; Dallas, 300. might cite fifty cases
bearing upon this question. have found
none conflicting with, but all conceding t.
Congress the sole power of legalation in the
Territories.
Congress certainly has the power, direc
from the Constitution, 0to make all needfu