The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1857-01-21

already shown that in answering some obserya
tons of my colleague; but viii quote another
paragrap ph in order to silence the accusation for
, ever. The President aays: ''-i,'-.f '..--.'
while, therefore in general, the people ofth,
northern States have never at any time arroga
ted for the Federal Government the power to in
terfere directly with the domestic condition o
: persons in the southern States, but, on the con
trary have disayowed all such intentions, ant
have shrunk from conspicuous affiliation witt
those few who pursue their anatical objects a
Fvowedly through the contemplated means reyo
lutionary change of the Government, and witt
acceptance Of the necessary consequence-aciv civi
T and seryie war-yet many ctiZ ms have suffer
ed themselves to be drawn into one eyanescen
political issue of agitation after another, apper
tanning to the same set Of opinions, and which
subsidized as rapidly as they arose when it came
to be seen, as it uniformly did, that they were
incompatible with the compacts of the Const
tuition and the existance Of the Union" .-.,
The President declares, in so many words
that the citizens of the North generally have
made no such claim. , .s. .. ..e....rr. s5gs.
The, Senator from Illinois Mr.. TRUMBULL
accuses the President Of having falsely said tina
the Supreme Court Of the United States had, il
a long series Of decisions, declared that Congrcs,
had no power to legislate upon the subject 0
slavery in the Tcgiteries, The President has
not said that. With reference to the state o
the question in September, 1850, when the
compromise measures were adopted. the Presi-
dent has said; .a ....,.... ..... -,.....
In the progress Unconstitutional inquiry and
reflection, it had now at length come to be seer
clearly that Congress does not possess consti
tutional power to impose restrictions of this
character upon any present or future State o
the Union. In long series of decisions on the
fullest argument and after the most deliberate
consideration, the Supreme Court of the United
States had finally determined thfs point in every
form under which the question conld arise
whether as affecting public or private rights
in questions Of the public domain, Of religion o
navigation, and ofservitude'' "7 I"
The President did Say that, in his opinion
the eighth section fthc act approved March g.
1920, which the Senator calls the Missouri com
p1oflise, was null for unconsttutionality; but
he did not say chat the Supreme Court had eyel
50 decided. V Is it thing unprecedented for the
President to express in message to Congress
his opinion of The constitutiohality OF unconSti-
tutonality Of any measure? Why, Sir, the
Journals are full Of such precedents. = Cd '.7'1
The Senator from Illinois was not satisfied
with this. Tie asserted that the Supreme Cour
had decided exactly otherwise; and that asser
ton has been reiterated by the Senator from
Vermont, Mr. CoLIAMER1 and several of his
political associates. They all refer to the case
Of the American Insurance Company rs. Canter
i q Peters, 546.). IS upon that rock they have
Ebult thefr' faith, and they can stand nowhere
else The Senator from Illinois represented the
court as having there decided tfat, in the exer-
else fits Jurisdiction over the Territories Con-
gress employed all the powers Of the Federal
and ofaState Government. That was not the
language of the court; nor did the court intend
any such proposition. What was the question:
It easily stated. A vessel had been driven
ashore at Key West, in Florida Territory and
siezed as a wreck. The case was then brought
before territorial court, with five or six jurors
held on the vessel and she was condemned as
Ederelctan ordered to be sold, and the proceeds
paid to the salvor5. The master of the vessel
when he left her on the high seas, thus aban-
doned her to the undcwriter, to wit, the Amer
lean Insurance Company; and the underwater
brought anaction of troyer against the purchaser
under the judicial sale, claiming that the terri.
torial court had no jurisdiction in admiralty
and could not take coghizance Of case of wreck
and therefore, the judicial proceedings were en-.
t,rely void. '-'''.'t '''t % % a..'' '1'z Pea
This question came to the Supreme Court Gol
determination. Mark you, sir, it was question
of admiralty Jurisdiction. If the territorial
court had jurisdiction in admiralty under the
Constitution there was an end of the underwri.
tcr's case, because the Judgment in admiralty
being, as lawyers say, Judgment in rem, bound
al parties interested in tho vessel, aid extin-
guished the claim Of the underwater as well as
i. of the owner, The argument was, that the adj
rniralty jurisdiction ofthe United statca could
only be exercised bycourts the judges Of which
had been appointed by the President and con.
frmcd by the Senate. The jurisdiction Of tho
United States in admiralty was admitted to b.
unlimited ss well as exclusive, and in fact, thai
has since been decidedin so many words.oi Bui
the proposition was, that the Judges 'ofthe ter
ritorial court had never been appointed by The
4 President and cenfrIned BY the Senate; Tn,
admiralty jurisdiction of the United States car
\ be exercised within the States only by courts
Whose judges are thus constituted; but as to Tho
Territories, Congress, in the exercise Of Its gen
eral authority to- establish and promote a terri,
4 toral organization, can confer this unlimited
i admiralty jurisdiction, which is exclusive in the
{. United States, upon any court it may choose tq
establish or adopt, Mrs Chief Justice Marshall
said;i \ "a Ehdkl a .ltA
tit has been contendeG, thatby the Constitu.
ton the judicial power Of the United States OK
4 tends TO all cases Of admiralty and maistime ia.
risdiction; and that the whole of this judicial
4 power must be vested fin one Supreme Court
andiin such inferior courts asSGongress ,shal
i from time to time establish, Hence it has beer
d argued, that Congress cannot vest admiralty iu.
4 rsdiction in courts created byYthei Territorial
4 Legislature.Y tgai qHoy ~ miail's adt II Jol
7 THAT was the argument what was Tie ats.
Iswer? ~ .l..st1i 4. ys'','q ~
eve have only to pursue this subject one ster
further to perceive that, this provision of The
4 Constitution does not apply toiit2FrrsEsi aas d
\ The provision fer tho organization oIrourts b
trho - - ttI.a4 tt1sh sa&7AaA