Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-07-02
MEMPHIS APPEAL.
RTGNAROLE.

/
from manuscript, an elaborate essay,
y the exordium explaining the purpose OF
y which, was as follows:
\ What I have to say will be confined
s to single topic; l shall speak of the
validity aud necessity OF fundamental
conditions on the admission OF States
= into the body OF the nation, passing in
review objections founded on the assert
ed equality OF States, and also founded
81 on q misinterpretatiOn Of the power TO
determine the qualifications of electors
and that other power to make regula-
tiOns for the election of certsin officers.
Announcing this purpose, he proceeded
to say:
l. Fundamental conditions on the admis-
sion OF States are older than our consti-
tuition, for they appear in the ordinance
, for the vast territory sf the Northwest,
adopted anterior TO the constitution
itself. In that ordinance there are vari'
Gus conditions of perpetual obligations
as articles Of compact. Among these ls
the famous prohibition of slavery. In
the early lays OF our nation nobody
thought Of questioning the validity OF
these conditions. Scattered efforts were
made to carry slavery into some portions
OF this region, and, uBquestionably,
there were spssmOdic cases, as in MGssa-
chusstts itself but the ordinance stood
firm and uninlpeached. An assurance
of It's authority will be found in the his
toric fact that ia 1920, on the admission
of Missouri as q State OF the Unlon' there
was further provision that IN all Jerrl-
tory OF the United States north Of thirty
six degrees and thirty minutes north
latitude, slavery Rnd involuntary servi-
tude, otherwise than in the punishment
Of crimes, whereof parties shall have
| been duly convicted, shall be, and here
by is forever prohibited. This was the
famous Missouri compromise. MISSOURI
was admitted as q State Yithout any re-
strictiOn Of slavery, and ali the outlay
ing territory, east and north, was suo-
jected to this condition forever. 1t VIII
be observed that the condition was IN no (
respect temporary, but that 1t was FOR" 4
ever, thus Outlasting any territorial gov.
| ernment and constituting 3 fundamental /
law irrepealable through all time. /
| Surely this condition, perpetual in form, /
would not have been introduced had II
| been supposed to be inOperatiye-had II
| been regarded as q sham and not |
| reality. This statute, therefore, testlhes
! to the Judgment Of Congress az that
/ time. Ii was only st later day and at
I the demand Of slavery that the validity
/ of the great ordinance OF freedom was
called in question. Mr.. Sumner then
| quoted from p speech OF MIR. Webster de-
| hvered during the memorable debate be-
| tween Webster and Hayne in 1880, in
! support of his argument Mr.. Sumner
continued: Mr.. Chase, in his admirable
argument before the Supreme Court Of
! the United States in the Van Zandt case
! is hardly behind Mr. Webster in homage
| To this ordinance, or in a. sense OF lis
! binding character. In his opinion it Is
compact of perpetual obligation:
81 know not that history records q
sublimer act. The United American
States having Just brought their perilOus
struggle for freedom and Independence
10 q successful issue, proceeded to declare
the terms and conditions on which their
vacant territory might be settled and or
gRnizsd into States; and these terms
were not subordinatiOn of any kind, but
the perpetual maintenance OF the genu-
inc principles Of American liberty de-
clared to be Incompatible with slavery
and that these principles might be invi- |
olably maintained they were made the ,
articles OF a solemn covenant between I
the original States, then the prOpTietOrs
OF the territory and responsible for its {
future destiny, and the people and the {
States who were to occupy it. Every . ,
settler in the tsrTitory, by the very act OF
settlement, became party to the COM
pact, bound by its perpetual obligations
and entitled to the full beneIt Of It's eX- ,
ceTeut provisions for himself and his
pesterity. No subsequent act OF the
original States could affect 1t without :
his consent; no act Of his nor of the
people Of the territory, nor OF the states, {
established within it, could affect il ,
without the consent u the original
StaIes.'
According to these words, which am I
sure would not be disOwned by the pres c
ent Chief Justice OF the U1ited States, c
the ordinance is & sublime act, having | :
for its object nothing less than the Perpet-
usl maintenance of the genuine princi- {
ole Of American liberty. Ia form it is a C
compact unalterahle, except by the con- 2
sent of the parties, and therefore forever. =
IL anything in our history wss settled by
orlginsl authority, supported by trsdi-
tiOn and time, il WAS the binding char
acter Of the ordinance for the govern q
ment Of the Northwest territory. No >
body presumed to call it in question,
until st last slavery flung down its ehsl- Z
ienge to everything that was settled for
freedom. The great ordinance, with its :
prohibition Of slavery, was not left un-
assGiled.
The ordinances fcr the Government of
the Northwestern Territory was enacted
by a Congress consisting of a single q
House, in which the States, then lesgued r
oreonfederated together were represented \
as Sovereignties, each equal TO the other q
aud each hRving one vote. The States q
so confederated retained, each for itself, r
and unimpaired, their entire sovereignty
and independence, and they had per- \
feet right to dictate the terms on which \
other States should be admitted into the 9
Confederation. They had the right to
say that no State formed ia the North. G
western Territory should be admitted in. il
to the league if African Sovereignty ex- 7
I4tea in it. The ordinance went further, :
and provided that the six articles con-
tained in it should he unalterable, and {
remain 3 compact between ths original c
states and the people Of the Northwes- !
tern Territory, "unless altered by com. s
mon consent - and the sixth article de- t
clared that there should be neither slave
~ or involuntary servitude in the said +
Territory, otherwise thsn in punishment Q
for crimes, whereof the party should have t
been duly convicted.
In PernloH y. First Municipality of i
NsD Orleans, Ho,gard $50, >Supreme Z
Court Of the United States, without a z
dissenting voice, held. Clancy, Story, >
Mclean, Baldwin and Wayne then be- b
ing among the Judges,) that the ordi- B
nance Of 1857, which was applied to the !
Orleans Territory by the act OF 1905, eh. !
IS, had no further force, ss re- q
garded the state Of Louisiana, after ?
the adoption of the State Constitution, :
than other Acts Of Congress, organizing &
in part the Territorial Government Of 3
Orleans, and standing in connection :
with the Ordinance of 1857. The Court :
said I" So far ss they conferred politi- b
cal rights, and secured civil and religious C
liberties, (which are political rights, ;
the laws Of Congress were ali superseded Z
by the State Constitution nor is any 0