The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-09-22
A COMPROMISE In JEOPARDY. QUESTIONS For
THE DEMOCRACY TO ANSWER.


ries should be defnitvely settled By the republi-
it has been claimed that Congress may exercise
all power over the subject The democracy, on the
other hand while they have denied that Congress
possesses any authority slavery in the Terrific
ries, and have admitted that the people thereof are
clothed by the constitution with all needful power
in the premises have nevertheless been divided in
opinion in regard to the time when that power may
be exercised for against slavery. One section of
party have claimed that, by virtue of the federal
compact the Territories being held in joint tenantcy
by the States, all property recognized by any
Der Of the confederacy must be protected by the
several territorial governments that the citizen
claiming such property has right to demand pro-
lection for it, and that there is no power in the local
authorities to withhold it. These men maintained,
and with irresistible truth and fairness that the Ter
rores held the joint estates of all the members
Of the Union that the governments thereof can be
clothed with authority which shall be in conflict with
the rights Of the people of the States respectively
Otherwise they assert that territorial governments in
stead of representing State sovereignties as they
should, in order to be in harmony with system,
would independent political communities, and have
the right such, to prescribe the very authority under
which they act In other Words the States, by vir-
tue of the constitution, have empowered the people
of the Territories to establish temporary
and authorized them therein to exercise Legislative
powers in conjunction with presiding officer ap-
pointed by the President. Now, it has been con-
tended by large portion of the democratic party
that the local governments thus created cannot 80
Al, r,..l,t -
States who, through their representatives, created
those governments.
Another interest of the democratic party have
maintained, that slavery could only exist by the au
shoriy OF the local law the law Of the place and
that it was perfectly competent for the territorial
governments TO ordain prohibit that institution as
the Legislative power might determine. These per-
sons argued that with reference to all matters APP
pertaining to the government of the States-such as
relate to guardian and ward, marriage and divorce
parent and child the descent of estates, the punish
ment of crime and various other affairs of the civil
administration, including slavery and apprentice
shipthe territorial government possessed exclusive
powers Of legislation.
When the Kansas ebraska bill was enacted these
two divisions of the democratic party found them
selves face to face. The frst-named desired, of
course that the bill should specifically restrict the
Legislature to the exercise only of such powers as
would not be in conflict with the rights of the Gill
of the several States with distinct reference TO
what by the laws thereof recognised as proper
ty. The opposite interest maintained that such lin
itation unconstitutional and that the people OF
the Territory under the government proposed to be
eseatcd had the exclusive right to declare therein
what should be held as property and what should
be recognised as SUCH Both parties, however con
CURED in the Judgment that the real Question in dis
pute between them was one OF strictly legal ma
ture, and that its decision should BE left to the s,
preme Court Of the United States In this view n
compromise was readily agreed upon, that the act
should passed comforting powers
Subject only to the constitution of the United States
We do not contend that the limitation thus verbally
reserved in the bill could affect the question of con-
sttutona power conferred upon the territorial legs
laturs. BY no means. Yet, nevertheless it was the
express basis Of the compromise issue, if you
please put upon the record to be tried and decided
by the Supreme Court of the United States
Now, lot us see what that court subsequently, de-
Ciueu we queue from Cihei Justice fancy, speak
ing for the majority and finally and thus placing the
matter above and beyond the power of judicial con
troll After maintaining nan elaborate argument that
Congress possesses power to legslac on the sub
ject of slavery, and declaring the Missouri Compro-
mise unconstitutional, he proceeds:
sIf Congress itself cannot do thisf it beyond the
powers conferred on the federal governmental will be
admitted we presume that it could not authorize ter
rtorial government to exercise them. 1t could confer
no power on any local government established by its
authority, to violate the provisions of the constitution
And il the constitution recognises the right of prop
erty of the master in slave, and makes distinction
between that description Of property and other property
owned by Citizen tribunal acting under the author
ity Of the United States whether legislative executive
deny TO it the benefit Of the provisions and guarantees
which have been provided for the protection of private
property against the encroachments of the govern
mept" }
We have then, the decision of the court upon
the great question which divided the democracy on
tho occasion of the passage of the KansasNebraska
act. The powers conferred upon the territorial
legislature extending to call rightful subjects of
legislation, the court decides did not embrace that
Of slavery, When the people of the place como to
organize their State government preparatory to adj
mission into the Union, they then for the first time
assume 20 themselves the functions of sovereignty.
and may exercise over the matter of slavery abso-
lpte Jurisdiction and power except with reference