The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1859-03-30

&x~W -
that clause in the bill requiring t6e LAWS
of the territory to be here sent 46r ap.
proval or disapproval2 We coala not
answer the inquiry, and hence ws struck
out the provision requiring that tie ter
ritorial laws should be sent here for ap-
proval or disapproval, upon the svowed
ground at the time that the territorial
legislature might pass just such laws as
they wanted. with the right ofappeal by
any one agrieved to- the Supreme Court
to test their constitutionality. but not to
Congress 70 annul them. l undertake
to say that this was the distinct under.
Standing between the Northern and South
ern Democrats at that time, and among
all the friends of the Kansas N Nebraska bill.
It was agreed tbat, while we might differ
as to the extent of the power Of the terrific.
rial legislature on these questions, We
would make full grant Of Legislative au-
thority to che Legislature of the Territory,
with the right to pass such laws as they
choose. and the right of anybody to ap-
peal to the court to decide upon, the val
idity and constitutionality of such laws,
but not to come to Congress for their
annulment. Hence, If the territorial leg
islature should pass the Maine liquor law.
and anybody was dissatisfied with che pro-
visions ofthat act. and thought it violated
his constitutional right he could not come
to Congress for its annulment but could
appeal to the Supreme Court of the Unls.
ed States; and if that court decided the law
to be constitutional, il must stand, no mat.
ter how obnoxious it might be to any
portion of the American people. Ifit
was unconstitutional, it became void with.
out any Interference of Congress. or any
other legislative body. The Kansas-Ne-
braska bill was thus amended for the a.
vowed purpose, at the time, of striking
ont the appeal to Congress, and substitute
ing the appeal to the court.
Afterwe had gone that far a Senator from
New Hamshire pointed out in the Nebraska bill
the fact that no appeal could be taken to the
Supreme Court of the United States unless the
amount of property in controversy was $4,000
in value, and hence that negro could NOT ap-
peal for his freedom nor could the owner of .
single slave appeal to the Supreme Court to
establish his title, if he thought that his rights
were violated. In order to obviate that obgec-r
tion we amended the bill by providing that
where the title to property in slaves, or any
question in personal freedom was the point in
issue, the right of appeal to the Supreme Court
should exist without reference to the amount
| in controversy. eet
~ Thus the Kansas Nebraska bill stood,
granting all rightful power of Legislation
on all subjects whatsoever to the territori-
al legislature. subject only to the Conssi.
tuition of the United States, provided they
should not pass any law taxing the proper
ty ofnoI-:esidents higher than that Of resi-
dents or any law interfering with tho pri-
mary disposition of the United States; but
there was no exception made as to slavery.
The intent was to confer on the territorial
Legislature all the power we had on the sub
ject ofslavery, to let them WELD il for OF
against free Institutions, as the people oi
the territory choose; and the understand.
ing was that we would abide by Whatever
laws they might make, provided they did
not violate the Constitution of the United
4 States; and the Supreme court was The
ioLly tribunal that could decide that aques.
ttion .H !1ae
I - Now. sir, stand on The KsnsassNe
braska bill as twas expounded and upder
stood at that time. with this fall , powerful
: the territorial Legislature. with the right o
j appeal to the Supreme Court to test fh
: validity of its laws, and no right an th,
+ event Of our not liking them, am read,
to answer the inquiry of the Senator fres
t Mississippi, whether, if I believed th
Maine Liquor law to be Unconstitutional
! and wrong, and is a territorial Legislature
, should pass il, would vote here to 7annu
: it? II tell him no. If the people Of Kan
J; sas want Maine Liquor Law, let then
have it. 1t they do pass It, and any acii
izen think that it violates the conssitakol
{ let him make case and appeal to Che E1
i preme Court. If the court sustains III
4 objection, tho law il void If Il override
J che objection. the decision must sand Will
!. the people, who alone are to beanettedS y
! il, who alone have an interest ia II, mo,
choose to repeal it. So say Win refer
D Fence to slavery. Let the territorial legis
, lature pass just such laws in regard to sla
) very as they think they have right 70 en-
: act under the Constellation of the Uui>ss
B States. -'isa ~ 80
! taeIf I do not like those laws, ! viii ne
t thvote to repeal them, If you do not liz
l ktheh, you must NOT vote TO repeal sthem
y but any ybody agrieved may appeal % a,
! Supreme Court and. ifthey are constitdti
|. onal. tley must stand; If they are uic6ns.l
], satlonal they are void. That waS the doc
y trine Of n-intervention, as it was at q
3 time the Kansas Nebraska bill Was parsed
: That is the way it explained shd Il
= gued in the Senate and House Of Repts
I sentatiyes, and before the country Ia "
: distinctly understood that Congress ;wa
ID never 70 intervene for OF against slsvef!
q or for or against any other 'fnstitdtioS' Z
!; the territories, but leave The courts 10 n
1 eide all constitutional questions q y6e
q might arise, and the President to carry q
!. Fdeorees ofthe court into ehect; and, ip Sal
s ofresissance TO his authority, in steSStil