New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-03-14

he control Of Congress or beyond the resrd CT nsI
particular law IT, therefore, Congress hsd power :,
make law eIciuding Slavery from The territory willie
under tie exclusive power Of the United s'a'e the Use
OF the word forever doee not invsloste The s~ 20
lorg Congress has The exclusive legislative power IN
the territory.
But Il s further insisted that the treaty Of 1893,
between the United Stats and Fran, e. by which this
Territory scquiTes has 40 restrained The coosct1-
orsl powers of Congress tbs. Il cannos by lsw pro-
hibit the introduction Of Slavery into that part Of hi.
territory north and west Of Missouri ans uof.h OF 80
deg 20 min moth latitude.
By treaty with foreign nation, the United States
may yet fully siipuate that the Congress VIII or VIII
not exercise its legislative power in some Particular
manner, on come particular subject Such promises,
when made should be voluntarily kept with me most
srupuous good faith. But ths! tresy with foreign
nation csn deprive the Congress of any part OF the
legislative power conferred by the people, so h,t no
oi ger eeslate il wss eDposered by the Constr
tutop 70 do, more than doubt.
The powers Of the Government do and must reman
uniupaired. The responsibility OF the Government
to foreign nation for the exercise OF hoee po ~ers
quite another matter. That responsibility Is 20 De met
and justified 70 the foreign nation, accor ling TO The re-
quiremens Of the rules Of public ls~, but never upon
the assumption that the United States had parted with
or Iestcted any power Of acting according 70 s own
free will governed solely BY lts own appe ,ssiou OF its
duty The second section Of the fourth article Is:
.Aa be sde in pur.usr &c thereof asde
hieh .ha Be nsde under authority the United States
shsl be the supreme law Of the land
This has made treaties part of eur municipal law;
but IL has ened TO them any particular degree
of authority, declared that laws 30 ensc'ed shall De
repealabe No supremacy lie assigned to resties over
acts of Congress- That they are not perpetual and
must be in some way repeaaole, oil will agree.
II the President snd the Senate alone possess the
pow er to repeal modify law found in treaty, 10
UGH they change or abrogate one ueay only
by making another inconsistent with the hrt the Gov
eminent of the United States could not act a. All 70
that effect without the cor sent OF some foreign Gov
| eminent do not consider-I am not aware i has
ever be en- consideredhat the Constitution has placed
our country in this helpless condition The acton OF
Congress in repeating the treaties with France by the
act Of July Z 1898 Stats at Large. 5II, was IN con-
formity with these views. In the care of Taylor ct al
spt Morton T. Curtis Cir. CT. K 45il, had occasion
10 cons er this subject and adhere to the views there
Fl therefore il were admitted that the treaty between
the United States and France did contan an express
stipulation that the United States would not exclude
Slavery from 20 much OF the ceded territory as is nov
In question this Court could not declsre that an act OF
Congress excluding it void by force of tss treaty
Whether or no case existed sufficient to justly retu
| ssl 10 execute such stipulation would not be-
udioal but oltical and legislative question, wholly
beyond tie authority of this Court to try and determine
Ii ould belong diplomacy and legislation, and not
10 the administration Of existing law. Such snpu'a-
ton in treaty to legislate or not to eglslae IN par
cuaI way has been repeatedly held In this Court 10
addr.s. itself TO the political or the legislative po yer
by whose &C ion thereon this Court is bound Foster
sQt Nelson Peters 2li; Glrcie ast Lee, II Peters
SIG.
But in my judgment, this treaty contains no stipuls
ton in any manner affecting the acton of the United
States respt citing the Territory in question. Befre ex
aiming the language Of the treaty, 1. is material TO
btar in mind that the part Of the cded Territory lying
north Of 80 deg 80 m and wet of the present State
of Missouri was then Wilderness unlnhao,ted gave
by savages whose possessory tile had not then been
eXtiDguisbed.
II is Impossible for nae to conceive on whist ground
France could have advanced claim, or could have
de.ired 10 advance a clsm TO restrain tue United
States from makr any rulee and regulations respecting
this territory, which the United States might think hi
TO make ard still less can conceive of any reason
which would have induced the United States TO yield
such claim twas to be expected that France would
desire TO make ths change of sovereignty and urisdc-
ton little burdeDsome az possible TO the then inhso-
ants of louisiana and mi ht well exhibit even an aDx
ous socitude TO protect tier property and persons
ar secure to then and their posterty their religious
and political rights and the United Ststes as just
government, might readily sccede to all proper stipus
tons respecting ihose who about to have their
ailee transferred. But what interest FraBcs could
have in uninhabited territory which, in the language
Of the treaty was to be transferred forever, and 10
full sovereignty" 10 the United States how the
United States could content TO ALLOW foreign nation
TO interfere in IFS purely internal affairs In which that
foreign patton had no concern whatever, is difficult for
to conjecture. In my judgment this treaty contains
nothing of the kind
The third atice is supposed to have abearns on the
tstion. II is ss folloSs:
The inhabitants of the eded territory shall be Incorporated
into the Uoion OF the United States and admitted
10 the Of i. the NIGHTS sdvan.se and mmuai,s.
Of ei1eIsp OF the United States and in meantime they
liberty property and the religion they profess.
There are two views OF this article, each OF which,
think, decsvely shows that il no. intended to
strain the Congress from excluding Slavery from that
part Of the coded Territory then uninhabted The fist
IT, that msnifesy, it's sole object to protect ind
vidud right. Of the then Inhabitants Of the Territory.
enjoyment of their liberty property, and the religion
"they possess" But this article does not 70
them the right to 60 upon the puolic domain coded by
the treaty, ether with without their slaves. The
Oh NJ doinu thia did VI aforao
at the time the treaty was made. The French aud
Spanish Governments, while they held the country
a. well . the United States when they acquired
It, always. exercised the undoubted right Of
and Of determining when, and on what oondi-
TORS II should be opened to settlers. And q stipu
laton that The then inhabitants Of Louisiana should be
protected In their property, car have no reference to
under the treaty to 60 with II, at the will of the
United Slater. II one who wss inhsbitant Of LOU
isans at the time Of the treaty hsd Afterwards taken
ammunition and spirits, and bad gone INTO the Indian
country north Of So degrees 80 minutes TO sell them TO
the Indians all must agree the third article Of the
under the act Of Congress of March 80, 1892 Il Stat
at Large, 1872 adopted aud extended 70 this Territory
by the act Of March &c, 1904, 2 Stat ct Large, 49,
Besices, whstever rights were secured were individ
oiated such light. Of any individual, and those rights
Of such character not TO be within the lawful
control of Congress under the Constitution that ind
vidua could complain. and the oct Of Congress- s to
such rights Of bis would be noperatve bat IL would
be valid and operative as to all other persons, whose
individual rights did not come under the protection of
the treaty. And inasmuch a. II d0es not appear that
any nhsbant Of Lousians whose rights were secured
BY treaty, had been injured It would be wholly mad
missbe for this Court to assume, int, that one OF
more such cases may have existed; and second that
if any did exist the entire law was void not only
10 those cases. any In which il could not rghtfully
lint an IN n