Weekly hawk-eye and telegraph. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1855-1857, 1857-03-25


eject every object for which the territory was
eeded II was necessary that the lanisshouid !
be sold to pay the war debt. aud that power |
should be given TO protect the cstizsns who
might emigrate there with their rights OF |
property, arms, military stores, las well as
ships OF war, } were the the ..comm1.a prop
erty Of the States existing in their adepen-
dent character, and they had rig!s 10 take
their property 10 the territory, without the
authority of the States The oi.jeas was to
place these things under the guardianship of
a new government, which gives Congress- the
power Ito make all necdfal rules and regula-
tons respecting the territory or other prop
erty of the United States IL applied only
to property held in common at the time, and
not with reference to any property which the
sovereignty might subsequently acquire. 1t
applied to the territory then in existence and
known as the territory of the United States
then in the mind of the trainers OF the Com
stitution. 1t refers to the sale or raising OF
money This is different from the power to
legislate over the territories With hewords
1to make all needful rules and regulations
respecting the territory are coupled the
words land other property Of TIE United
States" And the concluding WORKS render
this construction irresistible sani nothing
in this Constitution shall be so construed as
to prejudice any claims of the United States
or Of any particular Stale
It is obvious that Congress, undr / the new
government, REGARDED the above clause as
| necessary to carry into effect the principles
and provisions Of the Ordinance of 1857.
| which they regarded as an act of the States
in the exercise of their political power at the
time; and these representatives of the same
| States under the new Government, did not
think proper to depart from any essential
| principle, and did not attempt to undo any
thing that was done.
As to territory acquired without the limits
of the United States, it remains territory
until admitted into the Union. No power is
| given in the Constitution to acquire territory
to be held and governed in that character
and. consequently, there cannot be found in
the Constitution any definition ofpower which
Congress may lawfully exercise before it
becomes State Thepower to acquire terri
tory until it is in a condition to become a
State on an equal footing with the ether States
must necessarily rest on sound discretion,
and it becomes the duty ofthe Government to
administer the laws of the United States for
the protection personalright and property
therein.
| Whatever territory is acquired is for the
common benefit of the people of the United
States, which is but trustee. At the time
territory was obtained from France it con-
tanned nopopulation to be admitted as State,
and it therefore became necessary to hold
possession of it until settled and Inhabited by
a civilized community, capable Of self.gov-
eminent, and for admission to the Union
But, as we before said, it was acquired by
| the Federal Government as the representa-
tive and trustee of the people of tie United
! States, and must be held for their common
| and equal benefit; for it was the acquisition
Of the United States, acting through their
| agents, and Government held it for the COM
mon benefit until it should become associated
as a member Of the Union. Untilthat time
| arrived it was undoubtedly necessary that
some government be established to protect
| the inhabitants in theirpersons and property.
| The power to acquire carries with it the pow
er to preserve. The form ofgovernment nee
| essarily rasts on the discretion OF Congress.
1t is their duty to establish the best suited for
| the United States, and that must depend on
| the number of its inhabitants, and the char
acter and situation of the territory What
government is the best must depend on the
condition of the territory at the time, to be
| continued until it shall become IL State. But
| there can never be mere discretionary pow
er over persons and property. These are
clearly defined by the Constitution. The
| Constitution provides that Congress shall
make no law respecting the establishment Of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
| or Of the press; or the right of the people
peacably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for redress of grievances" &c.
Thus the rights of property are united with
the personal rights, and this extends to the
Territories as well as to the States. Congress
cannot authorize the Territories to do what
it cannot do itself; it cannot confer on the
territories power to violate the provisions of
the Constitution. a4
1t seems, however, that there is supposed
to be a difference between slaves and other
property. The people, in the formation of
the Constitution, delegated to the General
Government certain enumerated powers, and
forbade the exercise of others.
1t has no power over persons and property
of citizens except those enumerated in the
5 Constitution. If the Constitution recognizes
the right of master and slave, and makes no
difference between slaves and other property,
no tribunal, acting under the authority of
the United States, can draw such distinc-
ton and deny the provisions and guarantees
secured against the encroachments of the
government As we have already said the
right of property in slave is expressly con-
ferrcd in the Constitution, and guaranteed to
every State. This is language too plain to
be misunderstood; and no words can be
found in the Constitution giving Congress
greater power over slaves than over any other
description of property. -.--
1t is, therefore, the opinion of this Court
that the act of Congress which prohibits cit
liens from holding property of this character
north of a certain line is not warranted by
the Constitution, and is therefore void; and
neither bred Scott or any of his family is
made free by their residence in Illinois. The
plaintiff was not citizen of Missouri, but
was still a slave, and therefore had no right
to sue in a Court of the United States
The Court having examined the case as it
stands under the Constitution, proceeded to-
other points, saying, as Scott was slave
when he was brought back to Missouri from
Illinois, he was under the law of the former
and not of the latter. 1t has been settled bv
the highest tribunals that an individual does
not acquire his freedom under such circum
stances. AS it appears to the Court that the
plaintiff is not a citizen Of Missouri, nor a
citizen of the United States who could sue in
the United States Courts, this Court could
give no judgment, and hence the suit must
he dismissed for want IF iurisdiofior