{"character_count": 3221, "word_count": 548, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9639999866485596], "ccnet_perplexity": [940.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
/ Now, there.ls no Speclhc power lnslhe Consutu
,tion which authorizes the organization of Terri


toral Government. Such power was given IN


relation 10 the District of Columbia, and it was
equally necessary in regard to other Territories.


But this power be implied from the specific pow
er given TO regulate the disposition of the public
lands, il must, under the above rule be limited to
means suitable to the end in view. Ii Congress go
beyond this IN the organization OF Territorial
Government, they act without limitation, and may
establish monarchy. Admit that they may or
ganiZe Government which shall protect the lands
purchased and provide for the administration OF
justice among the settlers it does by no means fol-
low that they may establish slavery. This is re-
laon which must be created by the local sovereign
ty. 1t is municipal regulation of limited extent,
and, necessarily, of an equally limited origin. Ii
is domestic relation over which the Federal Gov
ernment exercise no control. And, above all,
the institution OF slavery is ot.wthin any implca-
ton which can be drawn from the power to regu-


late and dispose of the public lands other pro-
perty of the United States. As before remarked,
slaves are not treated in the Constitution as proper
ty. They are made property by the local law.


The Supreme Court of the United States have
decided that, under the power to regulate commerce
among the States, Congress could not interfere with
the slave trade between the States. And with how
much greater proprety and force of argument could
such power be sustained than the power to estab-
lish slavery in Territory. In the latter there is
nothing from which the power can be implied, while


the former is admitted TO include all commercial
dealings among the States. And it was upon the
ground that in the Constitution slaves were treated
persons and not as property, that they were held
not TO come within the commercial power. If Con-
gress, under any implied power, may institute sa-
very in Territory Of the United States, on much
stronger grounds may they exercise the CONNER
cial power over the transfer and sale Of slaves among
the States.


In the Territories Of Louisiana and Florida Con-
gress recognised and, TO limited extent, regulated
slavery. But, as before remarked, slavery existed
in those Territories at the time they were ceded TO
the United States; and, in the treaty of cesson of
Louisiana, the United States bound themselves to
protect the property of the citizens Slaves III that
Territory were considered as property, and were
within the treaty And it is singular that this fact
in the Missouri controversy was not, believe, re-
lied upon by the South. 1t was the strongest posi-.
ton that could have been taken that side of the
question.


If free territory be admitted and Congress have
not power TO institute slavery within it, the terri
tory must remain free until the people shall form
State Government; then the question may arise, in
the exercise of this sovereign power, whether sla-
very shall be admitted


Can the President and Senate by treaty estab-
lish slavery in the new Territory, Such power
is not found in the Constitution nor in the laws of
nations.