Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-03-09
MR.. MILLSON'S SPEECH.

-~ss-
MR.. MILLSON'S SPEECH.
We particularly recommend to the perusal of our
readers the staesmanlike effort copied into issue
of to day. Mr. Millson does not discuss the ve1ed ques
ton of territorial policy which now claims the imme.
diats attention of Congress- but seems mainly intent
on calling the attention of our Federal Legislature to
the consideration of those constitutional doctrines
which must ultimately be construed as to fix a
uniform and consistent rule for territorial govern
ment.
This discussion is not pursued 10 a sense of mere
generaz stion It'll rendered specific by direct re.
ference to the provisions Of the Kansas Nebraska act
the merits and demerits Of which discussed with
extraordinary logical soumen, and, what still better
In the same spirit of fearless oandor which has so
often given renewed assurance to the people of Vr-
gnis, of the unAinching courage and conscious nte.
gritty which mark the character of John s. Millson.
There are two features Of the Kansas act which
commend themselves as triumphs of constitutional
principle to the cordial recognition of conservative
pstriots-the declared unconstitutionay Of the Mis-.
outi Compromise, and the provision which enacts:
"When admitted as State or States, the said Ter
ritory, or any portion of the came, shall be received
into the Union, with without slavery, their Con-
stitution may prescribe at the time of their admission.
And the principle here involved is extended and
confirmed by the further provision that, the torma-
ton Of such Constitution, the people shall be left
perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic
institutions in their own way, subject only to the
Constitution Of the United States" In so far the
Kansas act regulates the admission of States, it
commands our unqualified approval, by asserting to
its full extent the doctrine Of State sovereignty unim
paired by the restriction embodied in the Missouri
Compromise, and unrestricted by further Congres.
sional interference.
But the attendant influences which the act exerts
with regard to territorial Government, We do not hes
itste to characterize injurious TO the interest OF
the Southern States and tending TO oomplcate and
embarrsss the great question OF territorial policy.
We contend that the common territory of the Union
ls open to all its citizens, there to enjoy the use o
whatever property they may be entitled to hold in
any State of the Union, and that the Federal Cons
tuition contemplates full legal protection of all suc
rights of property.
Now the Badger proviso cannot indeed abrogate
this abstract Constitutional rght-but it's direct effect
has been to repeal existing Constitutional laws estab
fishing and protecting slavery. and has left the pro
lection Of slave property unprovided for by any penal
code or any system of civil procedure. 1t left the
right Of slave property in the territories naked rights
unsupplied with necessary for it's enforcement
The action Of the Legislature Of Kansas has indeed
10 this instance supplied the deficiency but the Bad.
ger proviso still exists dangerous precedent OF
Congressional Intervention to abrosate laws enacted
by competent authority for the protection of slave
property.
And Mr.. Millson's speech throws flood Of light on
another point to be considered in this connection
How is the Constitutional right to bold slaves in the
territories to be enforced aud protected
The decision in the Dred Scott asserts the doc
trine that
Congress may establish territorial government,
and the form of this local government must be regu
lated by the discretion Of Congress- int Nth powcrS
not exceeding hose ph,ch Congress usef by The Con-.
stution 10 authorized TO exercise oper cui.ens of The
United States, in respect TO their rights of person
rlghts Of property"
Congress, undoubtedly, has right to abolish
slavery in the territories. Thus, under the authority
just quoted, such right can be exercised by ter.
ritoral legislature. But this doctrine is disputed,
and instead Of asserting il in an unmisaka able FORM
Congress has employed generaities which, of them.
selves would rather seem to incline to an opposite
decision
at being the true intent and meaning Of this act
not to legslate slavery into any territory State,
nor to exclude it herefrom, but to leave the people
thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their do.
meec institutions in their way, subject only to
the Constitution of the United States"
Taken In connection with the slavery question,
what powers are hereby intended to be delegated to,
asserted for the territorial government Is it in.
tended that the people of each territory shall be left
perfectly free TO egsse slavery into the territory or
exclude it therefrom in their own way subject only
to the Constitution of the United States7 Such lie
the only construction Of which, it appears to US.
the language Of the act is fairly susceptible. And
there but two modes Of accounting for such legs
lation. Congress either intended to deny the doc
trne Of the Dred Scott decision, and leave to each
territorial government full power to establish or to
abolish slavery; or Congress intended to leave this
question to future constitutional construction with.
out venturing to express decision as to the proper
construction to be applied. If the first supposition
be correct then the Badger proviso Is not the only,
the most fatal anti slavery clause Of the Kansas
act, and the act is itself at variance with the highest
judicial decision on most important point of consti
tutional law If the second suppositon be correct,
then, 90 far as territorial government ia concerned
the Kansas act has entirely failed in its pretended OBJ
ject-tbst of fixing uniform constitutional rule by
which to decide the question of slavery in the terrific.
ries, and the question still remains untouched by con.
gressional exposition.
Nor is this all. The Kansas act reserves to Con.
gress no power Of checking the unconstitutional ac.
ton of Territorial Legislature To some extent
such a check may be applied by the Federal Execu
tive acting through the Territorial EIeoutive but be-.
fore Congress intervene, it must 60 outside the
provisions of its organizing statute All previous
acts Of Congress- creating forms Of Territorial govern
ment have reserved power of immediate sbrogation
to be applied TO the unconstitutional acts of such
government, il being expressly provided that the
to Congress for revision and if disapproved sha be
null and void. But in the Kansas Nebraska bill We
may look in vain for such a clause. 1t might have
been seen there once, but, on the motion of Mr..
Douglas, 1t was stricken out" Thus 1t becomes
question: whether Congress- intended to deny entirely
its own power to intervene in the supposed and
thus to throw upon the Federal Executive, the whole
responsibility Of enforcing obedience to the Consu
ton of the United States, to leave the Territorial
Legislature itself ultimately to decide on the cons.
nationality of ito own acts. Whenever Territorial
Legislature shall attempt to pass an act for the abo
ton Of slavery such questions this will necessarily
arise, and We will be most agreeably disappointed, il
they shall not be embarrassed and embttered by
reason of the comple1ity in which the Kansas act
seems to involve the adjustment Of Territorial affairs
There is one other point, upon which Mr.. Millson
has not attempted discusson-but which is admira
bly, laid open for discussion by different parts of the
speech before us. IL the Kansas act an enabling
statuts7" On the face of the act it sppears-lst.
That the future admission of Kansas as State, is
contemplated BY the ao ai It is provided thst the