Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1857-03-27

foroibly illurtrates this policy. lie had made
mn his opinion that Congress had no power
under the Constitution 60 establish a National
Bank. In 1918 CONGRESS passed bill to
establish bank lie vetoed the bill on OBJ
icctions other than constitutional. In his
message he speaks as a wise statesman and
chief magistrate as follows: Waving the
question of the constitutional authority of
the legislature to establish an incorporated
bank. as being procluded in my Judgment, by
the repeated rocognitions under varied circum-
stances of the validity of such an institution
in acts of the legislative, executive and judi
cial branches Of the Government. accompan-
led by indications in different modes. of a
concurronccof the general viii Of the nation
Has this impressive lesson Of practical wis
dom become lost to the present generation
If the great and fundamental principles OF
our Government are never to be settled, there
can be no lasting prosperity The Consttu-
ton will become floating waif on the bill
lows of popular excitement.
The prohibition Of Slavery north Of SO deg.
80 min and of the State of Missouri CON
tanned in the act admitting that State into the
Union, was passed by a vote of 1874, in the
House Of Representatives, to -. Before
Mr.. Monroe signed the act, it was submitted
by him TO his Cabinet. and they held the re-
stricton of Slayoryin a Territory TO be with
in the Constitutional powers Of Congress
1t would be singular, if in 1904, Congress
had power to prohibit the introduction Of
slaves in Orleans Territory from any other
part of the Union under the penalty of free
dom to the slave, if the same power, cmbod-
led in the Missouri Compromise, could not be
exercised in 1920.
But this law Of Congress, which prohibits
Slavery north Of Missouri and Of 3G deg 80
min, is declared to have been null and void
by my brethren. And this opinion is found
cd mainly, as | understand, on the distinction
drawn between the ordinance of 1887 and
the Missouri Compromise line In what does
this distinction consist; Tho ordinance, it
is said, was a compact entered into by the
confederatcd States before the adoption Of the
Constitution, and that in the ccssion of tori
tory authority was given to establish a Terri
torial Government
1t is clear that the ordinance did not go in
to operation by virtue of the authority Of the
Confederation, but by reason Of its modifca-
ton and adoption by Congress under the
Constitution. It seems to be supposed in
the opinion of the Court that the articles of
cesson placed it on different footing from
Territories subsequently acquired. am un-
able to perceive the force of this distinction.
That the ordinance was intended for the gov
eminent Of the North Western Territory,
and was limited to such Territory, is admitted.
1t was extended to Southern Territories with
notifications by acts of Congress. and To
some Northern Territories But the ordin-
ance was made valid by the act of Congress
and without such act could have been of nc
free. 1t rested for its validity on the act of
Congress, the same, in my opinion, as the
Missouri Compromise Line.
If Congress may establish a Territorial
Government in the exercise of its discretion,
it is clear principle that Court cannot con
troll that discretion. This being the case,
do not sec on what ground the act is held
void. 1t did not purport to forfeit property
or take it for public purposes 1t only pro-
hibited slavery, in doing which it followed the
Ordinance of 1887
(Rrm Under next week.