The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-01-10

of the United States" Upon the
meaning of the word territory" SO used,
the whole controversy hinged-because 1t
was conceded, on all sides, that Congress
had full power and authority to make all
laws, rules and regulations, in fact to alb
solute control over the "territory" of the
| United States in the sense In which that
| word was intended to be used in the con-
stitution. The trouble was to discover,
| or agree upon, what was intended by the
word. At the SOUTH it was claimed that
"terIitory" simply meant land that this
was evident from the context, the words
| following being, land other property"
| and that the intention of the trainers of the
| constitution was simply to confer power
| upon Congress to make laws, etc, in ref
ercncc to the lands owned by the United
| States, including that which we now call
| uno,yanised territories. in contradistinction
| to oyyanised territories We say that this
was the claim of the south, but it is. also,
true that, for Il long time, the large body
of the north conceded the same construc-
ton. To this, it was answered, by some
that by another express provision of the
constitution. power was conferred upon
Congress to legisatc over most of the ter
ritory, in the sense of land. thus dcsig-
| mated, and that, moreover, the clause
| quoted gave Congress exclusive control
over the territories Of the United States
that is over those portions of the coun-
try which we call territories, organize rs
such, with IA territorial governor. other of
| ficers, Il delegate in Congress, etc. The
controversy is, necessarily. very briefly
stated. If the first construction was cor
rect, then Congress could not prohibit sla-
very in the territories, if the other was the
correct construction, then the whole mat
ter was under the absolute and sole con
troll of Congress. Around this pivot, the
slavery agitation ranged itself upon this
issue, the republican party was formed
without this dispute or controversy, there
would have been no attempt at secession.
no rebellion, and no war for the prescrya-
ton of the Union. What would have been
the present condition of the country, if this
question of construction hal never arisen.
it is impossible to tell, and idle to speculate
upon.
With so many states in the Union, which
have passed through the several stages OF
unorganzed territory, to organized terri
tories, with regular territorial government,
and then to their present position, it would
seem that the modus operdndi of the change
ought to be fully understood But It is not
so. Minnesota, perhaps, illustrates this
uncertainty rs well as any other state in the
Union although Iowa is aboat in the same
situation. Without going back to the old
Northwest Territory" which, undoubted-
ly included, within its limits, the territory
now known as Minnesota, we will take as
our starting point the territory of Michigan
This included the present states of Michi-
gan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and per
haps others The jurisdiction of the gov
ernment of the TERRITORY of Michigan ex-
tended over the states named Officers
tiht httt GIJDDlUlUu
therefor. At the time Michigan was adj
mitted us a state, the act providing for
'territorial government" was not repealed,
and but a small part of the territory was
embraced in the limits of the new state.
The territorial officers claimed, with some
show of right, that as their term of Office
had not expired, and as there was still
large portion of the territory Of Michigan
without a government, unless they remain
cd the officers thereof, that the territory
still existed, and took measures to establish
government accordingly. The point,
however, was never determined as. before
it could be brought to the attention of
Congress, the ''tcrritory of Wisconsin" was
established. The question again presented
itself, in 1S47, on the admission Of Wiscon-
sin into the Union, the residents beyond
the Mississippi river, claiming to constitute
that territory, elected delegate to Con-
gress. James Buchanan, at that time sec
rotary of state and, subsequently President
of the United States, took this view of the
question, and II. II. Sibley was elected del
egate from the supposed territory. With
out deciding the questions, for pruden-
tal reasons, he did not claim his seat as
legate-Congress, the next year, passed
an act creating the territory Of Minnesota.
This being question for Congress alone,
TO decide, it is strange that there is no cs-
tablished precedent upon the subject but
so it is Congress has, in this matter as in
the admission of states acted as the within
seized it without deciding whether a por.
ton of an organized territory can become
disorganized or un0ryanised, without laws,
orofiicers to execute the national laws. sim
ply because smaller part thereof has be-
come state. 1t may become a very I'M
pOrtant Qupgtion vet