f slaves; and the exercise of
the power was restrained till 1808. A citizen of the United States
owns slaves in Cuba, and brings them to the United States, where they
are set free by the legislation of Congress. Does this legislation
deprive him of his property without due process of law? If so, what
becomes of the laws prohibiting the slave trade? If not, how can a
similar regulation respecting a Territory violate the fifth amendment
of the Constitution?

Some reliance was placed by the defendant's counsel upon the fact that
the prohibition of slavery in this territory was in the words, "that
slavery, &c., shall be and is hereby _forever_ prohibited." But the
insertion of the word _forever_ can have no legal effect. Every
enactment not expressly limited in its duration continues in force
until repealed or abrogated by some competent power, and the use of
the word "forever" can give to the law no more durable operation. The
argument is, that Congress cannot so legislate as to bind the future
States formed out of the territory, and that in this instance it has
attempted to do so. Of the political reasons which may have induced
the Congress to use these words, and which caused them to expect that
subsequent Legislatures would conform their action to the then general
opinion of the country that it ought to be permanent, this court can
take no cognizance.

However fit such considerations are to control the action of Congress,
and however reluctant a statesman may be to disturb what has been
settled, every law made by Congress may be repealed, and, saving
private rights, and public rights gained by States, its repeal is
subject to the absolute will of the same power which enacted it. If
Congress had enacted that the crime of murder, committed in this
Indian Territory, north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, by or on
any white man, should _forever_ be punishable with death, it would
seem to me an insufficient objection to an indictment, found while it
was a Territory, that at some future day States might exist there, and
so the law was invalid, because, by its terms, it was to continue in
force forever. Such an objection rests upon a misapprehension of the
province and power of courts respecting the constitutionality of laws
enacted by the Legislature.

If the Constitution prescribe one rule, and the law another and
different rule, it is the duty of courts to declare that the
Constitution, and not the law, governs the