FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   522   523   524   525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546  
547   548   549   550   551   552   553   554   555   556   557   558   559   560   561   562   563   564   565   566   567   568   569   570   571   >>   >|  
specification is left to the Legislature.... It is not within the limits of human capacity to delineate on paper all those particular cases and circumstances, in which legislation by the general legislature, would be necessary." Governor Randolph said: "Holland has no ten miles square, but she has the Hague where the deputies of the States assemble. But the influence which it has given the province of Holland, to have the seat of government within its territory, subject in some respects to its control, has been injurious to the other provinces." The wisdom of the convention is therefore manifest in granting to Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the place of their session. [_Deb. Va. Con._, p. 320.] In the forty-third number of the "Federalist," Mr. Madison says: "The indispensable necessity of _complete_ authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it." Finally, that the grant in question is to be interpreted according to the obvious import of its _terms_, is proved by the fact, that Virginia proposed an amendment to the United States' Constitution at the time of its adoption, providing that this clause "should be so construed as to give power only over the _police and good government_ of said District," _which amendment was rejected._ The former part of the clause under consideration, "Congress shall have power to exercise _exclusive_ legislation," gives _sole_ jurisdiction, and the latter part, "in all cases whatsoever," defines the _extent_ of it. Since, then, Congress is the _sole_ legislature within the District, and since its power is limited only by the checks common to all legislatures, it follows that what the law-making power is intrinsically competent to do _any_ where, Congress is competent to do in the District of Columbia. Having disposed of preliminaries, we proceed to state and argue the _real question_ at issue. IS THE LAW-MAKING POWER COMPETENT TO ABOLISH SLAVERY WHEN NOT RESTRICTED IN THAT PARTICULAR BY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS--or, IS THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE SPHERE OF LEGISLATION? In every government, absolute sovereignty exists _somewhere_. In the United States it exists primarily with the _people_, and _ultimate_ sovereignty _always_ exists with them. In each of the States, the legislature possesses a _representative_ sovereignty, delegated by the people through the Constitution--the people thus committing to the legislature a portion of
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   522   523   524   525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546  
547   548   549   550   551   552   553   554   555   556   557   558   559   560   561   562   563   564   565   566   567   568   569   570   571   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
government
 

legislature

 

Congress

 

States

 

sovereignty

 

exists

 
people
 

District

 

competent

 

question


jurisdiction

 

exclusive

 

SLAVERY

 

amendment

 

legislation

 

United

 

Constitution

 

clause

 

Holland

 
defines

rejected
 
making
 
Having
 

intrinsically

 

whatsoever

 
Columbia
 

police

 
exercise
 

limited

 
consideration

extent

 
legislatures
 
common
 

checks

 
absolute
 
primarily
 

LEGISLATION

 
SPHERE
 

ABOLITION

 

WITHIN


APPROPRIATE

 
ultimate
 

committing

 

portion

 

delegated

 

representative

 
possesses
 
PROVISIONS
 

CONSTITUTIONAL

 
MAKING