The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1858-04-24

and Tennessee, and Michigan, the Leeisla.
lures had" power to make laws in all cases,
for the good government of the people of the
said Territory not repugnant to or rnconsiSt.
ent with the Constitution and laws of The
! United States.
In Wisconsin Minnesota, Oregon. Florida,
Iowa, the power of the Legislatures were de-
clared to extcnd--in the identical words of tn.
Kansas Nrbraka act to all rightful sub.
iects of legislation not inconsistent with tn G
Constitution and Laws of the United States.
Congress has construed both forms of ex-
preston 10y passing enabling acts for both
ella Sscs. Not only for Ohio Louisiana, Mis-.
souri,, Mississippi Alabama Illinois. Indiana
but also for Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ore
gan, did Congress pass acts specially Gmborr-
z1ng th.m to call Il convention and form O
| State gov eminent and, in every instance
excepting Wisconsin, these bills provided ali
the details Of the convention, the number OF
ofdclegates its time of assembling the modes
under which the delegates should be elected.
1t is plain Congress thought thepover 'to make
laws i'll all cases y necessarily extended it "to
! all riahtfm Spbjscts Of legislation" 1t is plain
| Congress thought neither form Of expression
authorised the temporary Territorial govern
ment TO create convention to form a consti-
tuition which would begin to operate only
after the Territorial Legislature itself had
ceased. Its power tn govern was confined to
| the Teirlioly-a temporary continuance for
temporary purpose involved in all the
| local interests and conflicts Of territorial poll
tics--and not safely TO be entrusted with the
| providing ior a constitution. In word
| they were authorised to make laws TO gov.
ern he Territory; but a law tor a constitution
vas no law for governing TerrH,rJ at al.
| The case is stronger under the Kansas
act. tor 1t reserves TO Congress the power to
| make two or moro States or Territories, out
Of that Territory and if Congress have the
| right TO make tDo States, It is absurd TO sup.
| pose II gave tie Legislature power to make
| o,le State Of it.
| But there are cases Of Territories which
| have spontaneously pe,itioned for admission
under constitutions framed without an ena.
, bling act, and they are fruitful of authority.
| The proceedings for the admission of Ar
| kansas. Michigan, and Iowa where there
were no acts Of Congress author ising cpnycn-
tions are decisive.
The law admitting Arkansas d. carcd the
! boUnda'les Of tie STATE. That, | suppnoe.
! establishes the fact that nobody then main
tanned that there was any authority in her
constitution prior to her admission. The
| territorial limits of Il State are essential to
| her existence; till they are defined there can
! be no State : af,tr there is n State. Congress
! cannot determine its right Of territory. On
! the territory depend the counties, the cleo
| ton districts. the judicial divisions, the ap
| portionmcntS ofrepresenlatlou, the very people
who are entitled to be heard on the adoption
of the constitution.
If the Territorial law can authorize a con-
vention which can adopt constitution
having any legal force prior to the recognition
Of Congress, ii must have the right to define
and appropriate the territory Of the State ii
creates and if it have not tiiS power it can
not create State III the eye Of the law at all /;
for Congress may destroy its identity by
| taking away half, or thirds, or all its
Territory. and give it to another State
Congress recognised the State Of Michigan
upon the condition that her people should
accept the boundaries Congress prescribed :
and on their acceptance only was Michigan
admitted.
Iowa was declared 10 be admitted as a
State, in 1915, under her constitution of lS44
Congress declaring her boundaries, and re-
outing tho assent OF her people TO them.
But in August, 1916. Congress prescribed
by law other boundaries for Iowa, and by
that law recognised the validity of the pro-
ceedngs Of the Legislature of the TERRITORY of
Iowa Of the 18th Of January. 1916, SUB.
hitting the boundary between the TERRITORY
| and Missouri to the Supreme Court and fl
| nally in December, 1876. Congress declared
! Iowa admitted into the Union under consti-
| tuition formed in May, 1916, and with the
boundaries Of the law Of 1916.
The case Of Wisconsin is st i'll more de-
cisive. The Territorial legislative power ex-
| tended 10 all proper subjects Of legislation !;
| yet Congress passed an enabling act, and in
| it defined the boundaries of the future State,
on the 9th Of August, 1916. The people
| formed constitution on the 10th Deem"
| Der, 1876, and Congress admitted the State
on condition the people assented to other
| boundaries. Instead Of merely asserting to
| the boundaries, they formed a new conStitu-
| ton Oh the lst of February, 1913; and on
their application were admitted as u State
with the boundaries of the enabling act, on
the Goth May, 1S4S.
These cases demonstrate that, whether a
constitution be formed by the people, under
or without an enabling act, the constitution
has no force Of tar, over either person or Ter
ritory, till the final and complete admission
of the State. Till her Senators and repre-
sentatives are entitled to their seats, the
| Territorial authorities continue, the organic
law is operative and supreme, the Territorial
Legislature retains its legislative power, Con-
gress can absolutely dispose Of the Territory,
assign its limits and exercise its discretion
whether to admit the people as State or to
retain them as they are. In a word, these
cases display the great fact lost sight of in
this controversy, that till actual and final ad-
as a State, the constitution IS not lar, it is
merely q proposition which will become oper-
alive only when Congress recognises the cx-
istence of the State
With reference to Michigan, a controversy
arose in the Senate which elected some sau-
tary opinions. We have first Of all the state
ment of his Excellency, the President then in
the Senate. When Michigan was applying for
recognition the exact question arose, whether
there was legal power in the Territorial Legis-
laturc to proceed, their powers being as |
have stated them. MIR. Buchanan then said
| We have pursued this course THAT is to disre.
gard info rmaiiticsj in regard to Tennessee TO Ar.
Kansas and even to Michigan. No SENATOR WILL
PRETEND THAT THEIR TERRITORIAL LEGIsL ATUREs
| HAD ANY RIGHT WHATEVER TO PASS LAWS ENA
| vENTioN FOR THE PURPOSE OF FORMING A STATE
| CONSTITUTION. 1T WAS AN ACT OF UsURPArIon uN
| THEIR PART"
This was said in the hearing Of the whole
I Senate that nm Scn1f,,r ,rauId ro,,fo1J that