East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1860-10-04


; erty" = "Territory aud other property.
} The territory spoken Of therefore, j
, PROPERTY IN LANDS.
, Rules and regulations are grad
: of legislation somewhat below the digni
ty of laws; but admitting them in thi
: case to have the same effect, OH what ar
they to operate? Simply on the propert.
} Of the United States, not on any othe
property, nor on persons, except so ia
J as they may be connectsd with the publ,
, property. To this extent, and no furthe
is the power Of Congress to legislate owe
a Territory granted to Congress, ant
whenever all the lands and other proper
ty are disposed of, the "rules and regula
tions" become obsolete, and the power o
Legislation, granted in this clause, il
thenceforth in obeyance.
| Moreover, this grant of power extends
as we'll to property within State as
within Territory. Tn State the gen.
eral power of legislation is in the State
Legislature; yet the power of Congress-
to make "rules and regulations respect.
ing the public property, is the same in a
State as in a Territory. The scope Of
the grant can, of course, be no greater in
a Territory than in State, and it neces
sarily follows that this clause of the Con
stitution confers on Congress no general
power of legislation either within States
or Territories.
1t is not satisfactory reply to this
argument to say that such power has,
to some extent, been exercised. Is it
better to acquiesce in and extend the
usurpation than to put stop to it, as
in the case of the United States Bank,
by bringing the Government back to the
constitutional test? Which is safest for
the South, the constitutional principle
that Congress shall not legislate for the
Territories at all, or the adoption of a
principle unknown to the Constitution,
which, in its general application, would
not only defeat the object it is advanced
to promote, but would enable the Free
State majority to surround the Slave
holding States and encircIe the Union
with an Empire outside of the organized
States, over which that majority should
exercise the power of unlimited and ex-
elusive legislation? If such an idea be
chimerical, the apprehension is not chi
FBqrfh BRANCHES 'fa' q the hts GoNSerhmeRt, N viii use
the claim now set up for Congressional
legislation over one species of property In
the Territories, as an apology for assum-
ing the power of general legislation, in
volving the power to destroy as well as
to protect.
1t by no means follows that the people
who may occupy Territory ofthe United
States constitute an independent commu-
nifty with all the attributes of sover-
eighty. Though the Constitution of the
United States does not apply to them,
they live under another constitution OF
power perhaps more limited. mean the
paramount law of necessity. They are
in the condition of bands Of hunters or
miners located in the wilderness, who
may adopt such rules and regulations as
may be absolutely necessary for the pro.
lection of persons and property until
Congress acknowledges their independ'
ence by admitting them into the Union
on the same footing with the orlglnal
States. At that moment, and not before,
the powers of limited sovereignty ac-
crue to them and may be exercised to
protect or destroy local institutions which
may have grown up while the legislative
power was limited to the absolute neces-
stiles of the occasion. IL it be said, that
the law of necessity may be transcribed
and regulations adopted to destroy some
kinds of property instead of protecting
it, answer that such regulations would
be an assumption of power not justified
by law of necessity, analogous to usurp'
ations of power in organized communi'
ties, remediless, perhaps, but for that
reason none the less unjust.
If this be not the true theory in rela
ton to our Territories, when does sover
eighty therein begin? Is the first settler
q sovereign? Does sovereignty accrue
when there are ten, or one hundred, ol
one thousand, or ten thousand settlers
, Where shall we draw the line and pro
nounce that on this side the settlers liv'
under the law of necessity, and on Md
J they become rightfully sovereign?
The Constitution of the United State
. was not made for Territories but 70
States, as its name implies. 1t has, b,
strict rules Of construction, nothing to d'
! with Territories outside Of the State
United, beyond the protection and dispo
sition Of the common property therein
It seems to contemplate that the Terri
tories shall be left to themselves unit
they have population adequate to tn
formation Of respectable community
when their independence should be at
knowledged and their admission into th
Union granted on the sole condition tina
they adopt Republican form of govern
e ment.
But if there be a doubt as to the powe
Of Congress to legislate for the Terrific
ries, is It not safer and more consisten
with Democratic principles to deny tn
power than to assume it? Some of tn
o original States when admitted into tn
d Union, had not the population OF thir
II rate city Of the present day, and no harI
d would be likely to arise by leaving. I'll
Territories to themselves until they has
is double the population Of Delaware
d Rhode Island in 1889. But would it nC
10 be incomparably better TO admit the
4, into the Union as States, with niue
n less population. than to leave them to