Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1858-11-25

State Into Il slavenoldlng State, precisely as 1t
now makes every Territory slaveholding Ter
ritory; and no State or Territory could escape
its consequences No State OF Territory would
have the right to exclude Slavery from its limits
The trembling tread Of the Slave might be seen
among the green hills and along the valleys of
New England, which, in Elysan dreams, we
had long fancied were consecrated as the home
of the free.
While your Committee by no means admit
the correctness of the construction OF the clause
of the Constitution referred to, yet they are
prepared, and the country should be prepared,
to see these doctrines fully and practically
carried out and enforced, whenever it becomes
convenient, or is promotive of the interests OF
Slavery, to cause another bred Scott decision to
be made. The Washington Union, the organ
of the Administration and Of the Democratic
party, distinctly avows that the STAKEHOLDER has
the same right to take with him his property
lin sIayes) into any of the States, that he now
has into the Territories, and no State has the
power to prohibit the exercise of this right
This doctrine of the CONSTITUTION has long been
foreshadowed. In a report made to this House,
on Slavery, in 1856, is the following significant
paragraph;
A." Ever active and ever vgilant the propo-
gandists of Slavery have enunciated another
startling principle Of their creed. Even now
they claim the Constitutional right to take their
Slaves into the Free States, aad there hold them
while passing; and, in perfect consistency with
this doctrine, proclaim the right to call the roll
of their slaves III the presence of ireemen on the
great battlefelds Of the Revolution And yet
there are not wanting Federal Judges and North
crn politicians who aid land some of them
claim to be leaders) in these monstrous perver-
sions of the Constitution. The Kanes the
Griers, the Cushings, and Lecompts, are but
types Of class to be increased unless Slavery be
restricted" What was predicted then has
since become matter of history.
/ Your Committee will now advert to what they
consider the settled doctrine and Constitutional
law in relation to the Territories. A majority
of the Supreme Court, and the President, pro-
mitigate the doctrine on this point as follows
Congress has no right by the Constitution, to
prohibit Slavery north Of certain line-have
no right to prohibit its introduction into the
Territories; and therefore the Missouri Com
promise and all acts of Congress excluding
Slavery from the Territories are void.
The power granted to Congress to legislate
and govern the Territories is contained in the
fourth article of the Constitution, in these
words:
The Congress shall have power to dispose Of
and make all needful rules and regulations res
pectiag the Territory or other property belong
ing to the United States.
The first objection started, by Chief Justice
fancy, to the power claimed in this clause Of
the Constitution, is so remarkable that we will
give it in his own words;
"lt," the clause in question, applied only
to the property which the States held in COM
mon at that time (whcn the Constitution was
adopted) "and has no reference whatever to
any Territory which the new sovereignty might
afterwards itself acquire
Now if this provision applied only to the
property which the States held at the adoption
of the Constitution, and that clause executed
itself when that property was transferred by the
States to the new government, the question
arises, where is the power or authority to he
found which can govern the Territories or prop
erty acquired since the formation of the present
government? There is no other clause and no
other power given in the Constitution except
this. By virtue Of this clause Congress organ
ICES the Territories, egslates for them, and the
President sends his governors and Judges there.
Even the noted Kansas-Nebraska act could never
pOcii fltuiihtu lUG lOLlcHb WtLC ~ lUl
the power here given. All those laws enacted
/ by the Shawnee Mission Legislature IN 1855, SC
rosolutely sustained by the Democracy of the
country, would fall powerless to the ground
r No Territory could be organized, none could be
governed, were 1t not for the power here grant
ed in the Constitution. 1t is manifest, there
fore that this position of the Court, is at wal
with common sense and with the practice Of
Il i
. The language of the clause ITSELF your Com
Y mittee believe, is conclusive on this point
D = The Congress shall have power to make al
f needful rules" What is rule? The tru,
definition of la'o, as laid down by all elementary
c writer's is rule Of action, and is applied to al
It kinds OF actions. 1t is the same, therefore, al
if the Constitution had said, g The Congress
It shall have power to make all needful LAWS res
+ pecting the Territory of the United States. -
t 1t contcrs on Congress the sole and only pow
i. er to govern and legislate for the Territories.
n But supposing the power were not clearl,
d given, what, your Committee would ask, is thu
rule Of construction to be applied in settling th'
N question OF power or right of Congress to gov
= ern tie Territories. We will adopt simple
Y rele of construction of the Court in this sam
d case of bred Scott, in relation to the power o
e Congress over another subject. The Court j
Q laborng to prove that Congress has the powe
d to EXPAND the Territory of the United States
q and with Court and Government disposed t
is add Cuba and Central America to the aread
It extended dominions of great Southern Slay
i oligarchy, this power must be an importan
" one. But the Court find, on examination, tina
If there is no cypress power given in the Constitu
G ton to 6 expand by acquiring new Territory
and it therefore rests merely in the discretion
It Of Congress. Jefferson and Madison found n
d such power in the Constitution, and the acquisi
n ton of Louisiana and Florida were justified O
a the ground of necessity only. But say tn
y Court, page 50
j. I" In the CONSTRUCTION of this power By a.
W the departments of the Government, it has bee
r held to authorize the acquisition of Territor
o not fit for admission at the time
ID We here find the Supreme Court of the Unite
y States, in the absence OF all explicit provision {
Y the Constitution on this subject, resorting t
n the political history of the country, and to til
legislation of Congress-to the purchase
"a Louisiana, Florida, the acquisition of Texa
10 California, Utah and New Mexico, to justil
,d the exercise of doubtful power. Let US appl
Nj this rule OF construction to the power Of Coz
n gress to govern the Territories and to prohib
NJ Slavery therein and see whether g it has bee
"a held by all the Departmental the Government
Of that Congress does does not possess this pow
or er. Your Committee will glance, for this pu
es pose, at the history Of legislation, of judic
in decisions, and the public acts of eminent state
r. men.
in On the 10Th day of April 1884, and agai
he in 1887, Thomas Jefferson drew up his eel
es brated Ordinance for the government of tt
w North West Territory, forever excluding Slay
lis ny from all the Territories then belonging to tt
or Confederation of States. This ordinance W;
he adopted by the Congress of the COME 'eracy {
". the 18th day of July, 1887.
W In 1889, after the adoption of the prese
of Constitution OF the United States, Congre
1 IL L Il =. =. q u