Hon. Amos Kendall On The Usurpations Of Congress

Gol. Orr, f South Carolina, has addressed a letter to the venerable Amos Kendall and elieited a reply whieh deserves to be carefully read by evory citilen. In regard to these flagrant uaurpa tions of Congress upon the resrved right of eitizens emigratiug beyond the limita of the States, ho says : Th8 fsllowing provisión is the ouly ono ia the Constitution whioh has becn ehieñy, f not exolusively relied upon to iustain the position that Congress has any power to logislato over the Territorio. viz. : 'Tho Congreaa símil hava power to dispose of sud make all naedfui rules and regulations reapecting the Toi'ritory or other property belonging to tlie Uuitad States." ïhe word " Territory" uid in thi provisión obviously mans and, and nothing lie. The United States at the time when the Constitution vfas adopted, owoed an iuimsnjo amoiint of land north of tho Ohio River, and these lauds Congress was au;horized to "dispose of" That the word "Territory" means property is eonclusively showu by its conneotioo with the words "and other property," - "Territory and othsr property. ," The tsrritory spoken of, i proper y in land. "Kules and regulations1' are a grado of legislation somewhat belew tho diuity of laws; but admitting them in this oase to have the sama effect, on what are thoy to opérate ? Simply on tho property of tho United Stateï, not on any other property, nor on persons except so far as they muy be coíinected with the publio property. To this extant, and no further, is the powr of Congross to legislate over a Territory granted to Congress, and whenever all ths lauds and otlier property are diïposed of, the "rulos and rgulationfl" becorno obsolete, and the power of logislation granted in this clauso is thoucefortli in abeyance. Moreover thia grant of power extands as woll to property within a Stato as withiua Territory. ín aStat the general power of legislation is in tho State Legislatura ; yot the power of Congress to make ';rule3 and regulations'' respeoting the publio propsrty, in the samo in a Stato as in a Territory. The scope of the grant an, of conrse, ba no greater in a Territory than in a Stato, and it neccssïirily follows tht this claus of the (Jonsütutiou confers on Congross ao general power of legislatiou, eitlier within States or Tarritories. It is uut a satisfactory reply to this argument to ay that uch a power has, to gome extont, been oxeroised. Is it bet ter to aoquiesse in and extend ths usnrpation than to put a stop to it, as in the ase of th United States Bank, by bringing tha G-ovsrnmoat baok to the constitutional test? Whieh issafeït for the South, tha constitutional principie that Congress hall not legislate for tlie Territories at all, Jor the adoption of a principie unknown to the Cuuatitution, whioii in its general application, would not Only defeat tha object it is advaneed to proraota, but would onable the Fre State majority to furround the Slaveholding States and encircle the Unioa with an empire outside of tho orgauizod States, over which the majority should oxereise the power of unlimited legislation ? If sueh an idea be chimerical,the apprehension is not chiraerical that the Black Repubiioans, shou'.d they acquire the control of all brancheg of tha iiovernment, will usa the cl&iia now set up for Congreisional legislatioa over oue species of property in the Territorios, as an apology for assuming the powur of general legislation, involviug thepowsr to destroy as well as to protecï, It by no means follows that the people who raay ecupy a Territory of the Uuited States constitutes an independent oommunity with all the attributes of sovereignty. Though tha Constitution of the United States does not apply to thom, they are in the condition of bands of hunters or minors located in the wildorness, who may adopt sueh rules and regulations as may be absolutely necessary for the protectoin of porsoas and ty uQtil Congress acknowledges their independeace by adinitting them into tho Union on tho game footing with the original States. At that momeut and not before, tho power of a liniited sovereigaty aecrue to them and may be exercisod to protect or dostroy local institutions whioh inay have grown up while the lcgislative power wag limited to the absolute nccessitiesof the occasion. If it bo said, that the law of necessity may be transcsuded and regulations adopted to destroy soma kinds of property instead of proteeticg it, I ausvrer that such regulations would be an assumptioiï of power not jusbiiied by the law of nooessity, analogous to usurpations of power in organizad coin. munities, remediless, parh&ps, but for tJiat reason none the lessunjust. If this ba not the truu theory in rel tioa to our Territorie., when does sovereignty therein begin '? Is the first settler a sovereign ? loes sovereignty acoruo when there are ten, or one hundred, or one thousand, or ten thoasand settlers ? Wbere shall we draw tha line and pronouuoe that on this side tho seltlers live under the law of neces3ty, and on that they becomo rightfully soveroign ? Tho Constitntion of tha United States was not made for Territorios but for States, as i tg name iraplies. Tt has by striot rulos of c.instruetion, nothing to de with the Territorios outside the States united, bevond the protection and disposition of the commou property therein. It ssems to contemplatö that the Territories shall be left to themselves until thcy hare a population adequate to the formation of a respectable coramunit}-. when their indepeudence should be acknowldged and their admission ioto the Uuion granted ou tha sole condition that they adopt a Kepublican Gorernment. But if there be a doubt, as to the power of Cougress to legislato for the Territorial, is it not gafer and more consisteut with Democratie principios to deny the power than to assume it ? Soine of the original States when jdmitted itito thu Union, had not the population of a thirdrate oity of the present day, and no hxv.n would bo likoly to arise by leaving the Territorios to thomselves until they luivo doubled the population of Dulaware or llhodo Island in 1789. Bat would it not be incomparably bottor to admit them into the Union as States, with much less population, than to leave them to be a boue of oontontion among demagoguea and disunionists ; disturbing every esseutial interest of tho country and jeopardiziflg the union of existin States ? la Virtue, lijje lu i.me, oasis its fragrance far ü'er Isnil aii'l sea.