Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1870-02-16
The Government Of the Territories

The Government Of the Territories,
A bill has been introduced in Con.
gress to give to the District Of Colnm
bia a territorial government Another
has been offered TO suppress "bigamy
concubnage and polygamy" in Utah
Through the exercise of the military
power Of the Federal government
This may warrant brief retrospect
10 the original practice and principles
tof the government of the United
Estates in regard TO the Territories.
Our Radical Congressman may like
TO learn something of those principles,
IL il be only TO violate them the more
intelligently. Democrats and Con
servatives who regret the havoc and
lfonyuleion that have ensnod upon the
fattempt 10 regulate slavery in the
| Territories, will perhaps, agree with
us, that the adoption Of new subject
for like agitation, is not warranted by
sound Judgment; and we think and
will show that it is not warranted by
The true principles Of our government
Our territorial system is older than
the Constitution Of the United States
Its origin is in the ordinance of 1884,
commonly designated as the ordin-
ance Of l7S7), passed by the old Con
gress of the Confederation, a body Of
very plenary power, as a sort Of
assem- blage Of ambassadors from the
several States, whose assent to the
acts of their agents validated what
ever they did. There was then no
Federal Constitution established by
the people.
The ordinance of 1854 accorded TO
the settlers full power OF selfgovern-
ment The free male inhabitants, as
soon as they amounted 10 five thou
sand. were empowered 10 elect
general assembly. Till this was
organazed, the Governor and Judges
were authorized TO administer such
laws of the old States as might be
appropriate; but this code oflaws was
to be submitted to Congress. But as
soon, however, as the Legislature met,
il was competent "to alter the laws as
they see fit, and pass laws not repug-
nant to this ordinance" without any
reference to Congress.
The ordinance of 1884 enumerated
and secured 10 the people of the Ter
ritories the common law and its rem
edies, and all the great rights which
were their Inheritance from an English
ancestry. In 1Ts7this was re.enacted,
with the addition ola clause excluding
slavery, but it also contained q provis-
ion for a Fugitive Slave law, which
had its origin in this celebrated ordin-
ance. It has often been enormously
stated that the cession from Virginia
excluded slavery from the vast region
that she cedcd now known as Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan. This
error has even crcpt into Judge
Stroud's valuable work (Slave Laws,
pago 290). II is true that Mr.. Jeffer.
son, simultaneously with the cession.
tried to provide for the abolition of
slavery in the Territory, but his plan
was defeated, his own colleagues from
Virginia, in the Continental Congress,
voting against his proposal.
We now come TO the first precedent
for Territorial government under the
Constitution of the United States
By eession from North Carolina, in |
1889, it was stipulated that the people |
of the ceded Territory afterwards
the State Of Tennessee), should have
the same government as that estab.
lished ia the Northwest Territory
"Providsd always that no regulation
made OF to be made by Congress shall (
tend o. emancipate slaves" Thus
the people Of this Territory were
screened from any interference "from
Congress" and the eighth section of
the deei Of cession provided that the
laws of North Carolina should con
tinue q force "till altered by the
Legislative authority Of the said Ter
ritory.' All this was adopted and
ratified by Congress in its "act for the
government Of the Southwest Terri
tory" Almost identical were the
terms of the cession from Mississippi
in l79s, and Georgia in 1908. The
same form Of government was sub.
stautially established by Congress for
the Louisiana Territory, purchased
from France. The local Legislature
was to repeal or enact laws, and the
proyiso of 1857 against slavery was
not imposed, but slaves we're TO be
introduced into the Territory by a
citizen removing into IT, 1t were i'm.
possible, within reasonable limits, to
review the conflict of lsl9-2l over
tho admission of Missouri as a State
In debate on il an eminent Pennsyl.
vania statesman, Henry Baldwin,
afterwards Judge of the Supreme
Court), said:
This Is the general system prescribed by the
ordinance Of 1857 which has been applied rcnel-
hiy 10 the new States In admitting a territory
o he second grade Of territorial government the
Ccicral Assembly Is always vested with universal
and unlimited powers Of legislation In the case ,
Of Missouri II Is remarkably comprehensive atho
G Gcicfal Assembly shall have power to make laws
in lll cases civil and criminal, for the good gov
" Z
sisnt with the Constitution Of the United States
Ash the legislation Tor an internal purposes this
conhrrcd as full powers any State possessed
. the General Assembly once organized !
hai be same powers a. in a State Congress has !
no Asto in either case"
lis argument was that the Terri.
total Legislature having established !
slfery, Congress could not compel ,
the abolition Of it, This doctrine +
prefailed, and Missouri was admitted /;
as State. This great speech off
Baldwin is entirely omitted in Ben. +
tons Debates. We have read IL in Z
Mis- Register, vol. xviii. We except /
INDEED, to much of the statement of \
thR question in Ben,on's speeches and G
wfings on the subject, upon il. In
lsSl he put hlmselfin anlagonism to
ihemost eminent men Of the Demo. 1
crate aud Wing parties. But they '
prevailed passing the Territorial bills n
for Ncw Mexico and this very Tcrri. {
tory OF Utah, in the time. honorcd 4