Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-03-09


powers exceeding those which Congress irsef by
the Constitution, is authorized TO exercise over citi
of the United States in respect to their rights OF
person or rights of property"
| The Northern advocates Ot the Nebraska bill Jus.
tilted the repeal of the Missouri oompromss upon the
ground that Congress had no power to pass such an
act; and yet they compelled or persuaded liz to nc.
cept substitute which, while il was even more mis.
chevous in its practical effects, WAS rs pa!pabe a
violation of the Constitution as the ACT which: II sup
| planted.
| 1t will be seen, air, that adopt the construction
given to the bill by it's Northern advocates the just
and true Interpretation of ils meaning and objects
/ know that sOme of my Southern friends and asso-
ciates and particularly colleagss, are unwilling TO
admit this construction. They say that the bill gives
power 10 the people of these Territories to pro-.
hbt slavery, a. long they remain in the condition
of Territories. but only authorizes them TO do IN
! forming STATE Constitution or after thsy hare
became n STATE.
Indeed, sir! Is this than all that is included in
that great doctrine Of "pppular sovereignty which
ID said to be the distinctive feature and the chief
! ceence OF the Nebraska bill Is this the new 8rti
| Gle Of faith which has been adopted with 30 much
ceremony, and with such air Of resouts defiance,
| into the creed of caucu5es and conventions Why,
sir if this all that is meant by popular sovereignty,
there ID hardly man in tho country, and surely not
one in hs House, that will dispute it. Who has ever
denied that STATE may establish prohibit slavery
And whst more is Involved in the idea that the peO.
Pile of Territory may exercise this power in form
ing State constitution, than that State itself may
do so 7 When atsrrit0ry becomes State, II is only
rs State that its inhabitants form constitu-
! ton. II thsy admitted into the Uuion the
recognition of them by Congress as a State re-
lates back to the TINA when they formed their Con.
stitution Ii is sort of acknowledgment Of their in
dependence, and Of their Independence at the time Of
making their Constitution. If they not admitted,
| why thsn all their acts simply void and thsy
| formed no State Constitution at all but only some
thing which they wanted Congress to recognize
| Constitution State cannot make a Constitution
| for a Territory; nor can Territory msks u Constu
t0n for State Nothing in our political system is
more unlike than n State and Territory. State
gives power to Congress; but Territory receives il
| from Congress- a Territory ia the creature of Con
grrss; while Congress s the creature of the States
Congress, then, is not he source of any OF the pow
ers exercised by people in forming State Cons.
tuition; but il is the only source 0i all the powers
ercised by the people Of Territory. Ths exclusion
of slavery therefore, by State, does not imply any
such power in Congress-; while it's exclusion by Ter
rtory would necessarily imply the possession of the
power by Congress.
II it be true hen that the Nebraska bill comedies
to the people of Kansas and Nebraska nothing more
| than the right to exclude slavery when they form
their State Constitutions it would | said before,
only be the concession of q principle which nobody
/ has ever disputed And yet many of our Southern
presses stouy maintain that this is all Congress
! intended to do; they have diligently impressed this
| idea on the Southern mind; and they quote in sup
port OF their views two clauses OF the Nebraska bill,
"When admitted as a State or States, the said Ter.
ritory, any portion of the same, shall be received
! into the Union with or without slavery, their Con-
stitution may prescribe at the tins Of their adns
sion."
| The other, from the sixth section providing that
1.-The legislative power OF the Territory shall ex
tend to a.! rghtul subjects of legislation consistent
with the Constitution of the United States and the
! provisions Of this act"
Now sir, il these were all the provisions Of the
hill applicable 10 this question, there would be much
force their conclusions. There is however nothing
in these two provisions distinguishing the Nebraska
bill from other territorial bills The first may be
found in the actI organizing territorial governments
tor Utah aud New Mexico, in the very words used in
the Nebraska lil. The intent and meaning Of this
| provision are obvious enough. II it was simply de
signed TO pledge the faith of Congress that these
future States slould not be refused admission into
he Union mer.y because of th.ir allowing or pro.
| hbiUg slavery in their Constitutions The other
| may be found rot only in the Utah and New Mexico
bile, but believe in every other bill establishing
| Territorial gOvsrrmen:.
But there isa further provision in the Nebraska
| bill 10 be fund nowhere else. IL distinguishes
| that bill from every oh-r territorial enactment
II ia impossible 10 escape the iurcs OF its language
! We cannot giva il sPecia application TO the form
ing of State Constitution; for the first section pro-
vides for that. We cannot regard il as description
o the general legislative power OF the Territory for
the sixth secten provides for that. Ii can be- viewed
in no other liglt than license permission to the
| ps,pe of the Territory, mhtie Irritory, TO estab
sh prohibit slavery; and as shall presently show,
| if this power cannot be properly exercised oy the
! people of Territory, il is not because it was not
Granted in tn, BILL but only because under the dec
sion of the Srpreme Court you had no right to grant
| il. This ia th, clause to which refer:
"lt being tle true intent and meaning Of this act
not to leg-a'e slavery into any Territory or State
nor to excuCe it therefrom but TO leave the people
thereof perfectly free TO form and regulate their do
nestle institutions in their own way, subject only to
| the Constitution of the United States.
Ii was ''the true intent and meaning Of the act
not TO legisste slavery into any Territory State
| nor to excluis il thercfrom, but'-but wbat1-"to
| leave the people thereof'-whst peoplel Why,
| tn. people OF any territory Stste-"perf-cty
free to form and regulate their domestic institu-
were here ftendeil Why, among others, thatinstitu
ton which of the South are accustomed to speak OF
as our most important domestic iustitution-the ins
| tuition Of slavery. Who will deny that slavery was
one of the domestic institutions which the people OF
any Territory State left perfectly free to form
and regulate in their own way'
An hut | nm sometimes told that this power, as
expressly stated in the bill, was granted "snCect only
to Ue Constitution of The Unued States, aud that if
i.s exercise il not consistent with the Constitution
why, then The grant was void; that such power IS
not consistent with the Constitution, and, therefore,
the grant was not operative or eaectlve; and that
Congress, waving any decision Of the Constitutional
question, intended to submit II to the courts OF JUS
tice.
Mr. Chairman, every act of Congress is subject to
the Constitution. If Congress expressly declare that
il shall not be subject to the Constitution, it wi be
nevertheless If they say il shall be subject to it,
they do not make il so than they ssld.noihing
about it, To suppose that such declaration has any
effect at all, IL to imply ha. some occasions ICON
rrrss NAV properly direct that their acts shall not be
pubiec, to the Constitution. The expression, therefore,
in the mos, favorable view We can take Of ii, was
wholly without meaning or operation. 10 me II ap
pears absolutely childish 1t reminds us of DR..
Johnspn's conditional prayer for ths soul OF his
deceased wife-"IG mere Larful"
But sir, the doctrine involved in this excuse is
A mischievous as il Ia unsouud. What right have
Congress to waive the consideration OF their Con
suona authority to do what they proposei
Are not our powers defined and limited by the
Constitutonl And not required to take an
oath to support III Are We not as much bound
to keep ourselves within the limits Of the COnstu
tuition as the Courts Of Justice are to keep there
Are the courts themselves under greater obliga
tion, to support the Constitution than We are !
protest against this doctrine that an assumption Of
ungrented power may be innocent, and even laudsble
If we express q willingness that acts may bs an
nulled when declared unconstitutional. Upon such
principle, what might We not dol We could charter
a national bank subject only 10 the Constitutions We
could lay duty exports, subject only to the Con-
sttuon; we could grant title of nobility, subject
only to the Constitution. What an easy method for
idoIen. legislators. How much labor and anxiety
would be saved in the examination of difficult ques
tions of constitutional law! But, cir, it was the very
object of the Constitution in requiring of the oath
we take 10 conins within the limits marked out
for us, and rss'rsn US from going bsyond them when
ever We might have mind to do 50.
But, MIR. Chairman. lei ms dwell little longss
on this branch of the queston. 1t is admitted that
if Congress hiss this power, it is granted by the bill
If not, then it is said it is not granted. Then
it follows that the words or terms OF the law
make this grant to the people Of these Terri.
tories; and if it s not valid grant, it is ouy because
| . l., ir.
| TO be known whether it is Constitutional grant or
not Why, cir, that never be determined unless
these people should undertake to exercise the power
delegated TO them. II they claim it, l.,
no opportunity would be afforded tor testing the
question: and thus the very object attributed to Con.
gres, by the friends OF the bill would be defeated
which TO submit the question, iu ths last resort,
TO the courts. The Territorial legislatures then,
the interiors of Congress- wsrs to decide upon the
extent and Constitutional validity Of the grants mad.