jurisdiction, to say the least, and really does not seem worthy
of a serious reply.

The territory of the United States is strictly subject to the
Government. The only clause in the Constitution which refers to
this interest conveys that meaning. But, were the instrument
silent, the power would remain the same. Sovereignty of this
nature is not determined by municipal law, but by the law of
nations. Thus, for instance, the right to make war, which is
inherent in every state of FOREIGN RELATIONS, infers the right to
secure its conquests; and that clause of the Constitution which
declares that the war-making power shall abide in Congress, says,
at the same time, by an unavoidable implication, that the
national legislature shall have all authority to control the
consequences of this war. It may dispose of its prisoners and its
conquests according to its own views of policy and justice,
subject only to the great principles that modern civilization has
introduced into public concerns.

One can understand why a different theory is in favor at the
South. It would be very convenient, no doubt, to the slaveholder
to be permitted to transfer his slaves to the gold diggings, and
gather the precious metal in lieu of a crop of cotton. But this,
the policy of the whole country forbids. Congress has very justly
left the decision of this very important matter to the people of
California itself; and they have almost unanimously raised their
voices against the measure. This, after all, is the really sore
point in controversy between the South and the North. The
fugitive slave has been, and will be given up to the legal claims
of his master; and, in a vast majority of the people of the