Gazette and sentinel., 1860-09-22

on CGltG can take IL away buh - ;"
lion doe uut carry it there, no power hui Ia
pie can carry it there. Whatever iaay be- .r.
true decision of that constitutional point. N"i.l
not have affected my vote for or against ih' -
Lraska bill. | should have supported il Ja>i -s
readily il / thought the decision would b. utr
way or the other. Ifmy colleague will yXJa"v'
my speeches, he will find that dtclaratioH. ill.,
viii also lind that ] stated | would not di>cu-> i,f'
legal question, for by the bill We referred II Ola"
courts
And at a still later pcriod--in the month .j
May last-in the Senate OF the United State, Tbs,
distinguished gentleman said
In The debate growing ont of this TOom!e n!l.
my colleague put the question Ia me. after u Dad
been answered over and over again in previous
speeches, whether or not u Territorial LegislatIr
had the power to exclude slavery. lie had heard
my opinion on that question over and over again.
| did not choose to answer a question that had
been so often responded to, but referred him Ia
the Judiciary, to ascertain whether the power cN-
isted. | believed the power existed Others be-
lieved otherwise We agreed to differ We agreed
to refer it to the Judiciary ; we agreed to abide by
their decision
Gentlemen. l think l have shown that upon
the only point in dispute between the friends
of the Kansas bill-to-wit: the powers of the
Territorial Legislature to exclude slavery
pending the territorial condition, that upon
that point Judge Douglas and his friends, and
Gen. Cass and his friends-that portion of the
Northern people who believed in the power
agreed with Us who were friends of the bill,
and did not believe in the power to refer II To
the Supreme Court Of the United States and
that whenever that question was judicially de-
termined. we agreed to abide that decision.
We agreed, in the language of Gen. Cass, that
that should be final. Weagreed that il should
cease TO be an agitated topic in politics, but
that we should rcpose in peace upon the Con-
s]titution as thus judiciaily determined. Is not
that true
Bear with me while | read n very little from
the opinion Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States. We have seen the single point
on which We differed. We have seen the re-
ference-the agreement we had come 10. Now
the question is, how did the Supreme Court If
the United States decide that controvcrtcd
point? \ negro called bred Scott had been
taken above the Missouri Compromi,e line of
| so 30,-tho line above which Congress had
said by law that slavery should not exist. The
negro, bred Scott, sued for his freedom, allrg-
ing that he had become free by being taken
there. 1t became necessary for the Supreme
Court Of the United States to determine the
relation of the territories to the Federal Gov
eminent, an3 the power of Congress, and the
power OF the territorial authorities over gucs-
tons having reference to persons and pro-
perty in the territories OF the United Staies.
All these questions are determined in the opin-
ion of the Court.
Gentlemen, oceans of ink has been she'd
thousands of speeches have been made-all the
catchwords of dcmagogiSm, and all the forms
of stating the question which can appeal t.
the passions and prcjudices of the people have
| been exhausted in the discussion of this issue.
Let us for u moment turn aside from this
heated, scething cauldron Of warfare To the
enlightened, calm and judicious uttcrancr of
the most august tribunal in the world.
This is the opinion Of the Chief Justice con
Cured in by all the Judges but two, of the Su-
prcme Court of the United States. The Court
in speaking of the acquisition of territory by
the Federal Government, says:
at is acquired by the General Government
as the representative and trustee of the people
Of the United States, and it must, therefore,
be held in that character for their common
and equal benefit. For it was the people Of
the several States, acting through their agent
and representative-the Federal Government
who, in fact, acquired the territory in CUES
ton. and the Government holds it for their
common use until it shall be associated with
the other States as "a member Of the Union
There is no cant, no demagogism, no flour
ish there but a simple, clear, lucid and dis
passionate expression OF Unconstitutional truth.
The Court goes on to say:
But until that time arrives, 1t is undoubt-
edly necessary that some government should
be established in order TO organize society, and
as the people of the United States could actin
this manner only through the government
which represented them, and through which
they spoke and acted when the territory wa,
obtained. it was not only within the scope of
its power, but was its duty to pass such laws
and establish such a government as would en-
able those by whose authority they acted, t"
reap the advantages anticipated from its ne
QUESTION, and to gather there II population
which would enable it TO assume the position
to which it was destined among the States Of
the Union"
But in regard to the power Of Congress in pro-
yiding that Government, the Court says
The power to acquire necessarily carries with
it the power to preserve and apply To the pur-
pose for which it was acquired. The form Of
government TO be established, necessarily rested
in the discretion Of Congress"
Then going on, link by link, developing to the
conclusion, they say
The rights of property are united with the
rights of person, and placed on the same ground
by the fifth amendment OF the Constitution, which
provides that no person shall be deprived Of life,
liberty and property, without due process of Law.
An act of Congress which deprivcs a citizen Of
the United States of his liberty or property, merely
because he came himself or brought his property
into a particular Territory of the United States,
and who had committed no otiense against the
laws, could hardly DC digni6ed with the name Of
due process OF law.
$50, too, it will hardly be cOntended that Con.
gress could by law quarter a soldier in a house II
/, q Territory without the consent Of the owner. il
, time of peace nor in time OF war, but in "a man
ner prescribed by law. Nor could they by Law
forfeit the property of a citizen in a Territory wl'
was conyicted of treason. for a longer period thar