The Iowa patriot. [volume] (Burlington [Iowa]) 1839-1839, 1839-07-18

this Territory,---tllslt the actof SO aRogz
mentioned is a mere naked declsrSsit.a
requiring further legislation lie render il
operative-that it merely imposes i du,y
upon the states and territories 10 be iforFti-
ed within the prescribed limits, bfft that
without further action on the subject the
law has no sanction, and consequently no
force. This position We think cannot pc
maintained. Congress possesses ths su-,
preme power of Legislation in relation to-
the Territories, and its right to prcfibit
slavery, at least in relation to slaves sut-
sequently intrcduced..-is doubtless iaeiris
mate. Has this right been exercised in
relation to the Territory? The language
of the act of 1920, in relation to the dis.
trict of country embracing this Territory,
is, that slavery therein ssshall be and is
hereby forever prohibited. This seems
to us to be an entire and final prohibition
mot looking to future legislative action
to render it effectual.
But it is said that although the act may
prohibit slavery, still it does not declare
forfeiture of slave property, and that the
|
the master may be required to remove his
property out of the Territory. 1t is true
that the act just mentioned does not in
express terms declare forfeiture Of slave
property; but itdeclares in effect that such
property shall not exist.
The master who subsequently to that
act should permit his slave to become a
Sc IL,
any acts of ownership over him within
this. Territory. The law does not take
away his property, but declares it no lon
ger to be property at all. Of course those
legal remedies which can only be resorted
TO upon the presumption of still subsst-
| ing ownership to the master, become alto
gether annihilated.
A wide difference exists between this
case and that supposed of an act Of Con-
gress prohibiting private banking. In the
latter case the property invested in that
traffic in violation of the law, would GER
tainly not become forfeited. But suppose
that instead of declaring that property
should not be invested in private banks
within this Territory, the act had declar-
ed that capital SO invested should forth
with cease to be the subject of property
at all, could the former owner, after such
investment, invoke the aid of our laws to
restore him what had once been his, but
which was now like the air, rendered in
capable Of being appropriated by any
one? Such is precisely the state of things
in tic case now before US. Property in
the sia;e cannot exist without the exis-
tence of slavery. The prohibition in the
latter annihilates the former. Property in
the slave being altogether destroyed, he
I, becomes free. IS
Could the claimant in this case retain
the custody and control of the petitioner
without invoking the aid of our laws, and
without their violation, we certainly
should not interfere to prevent him. But
when he applies to our tribunal for the
purpose ofretainng that as nrceer:t;r " ..c.,
our Laws s.@s have declared shall not be proper
ty it is proper that they should refuse their
cooperation. When in this manner he
illegally Restraints human being of
his liberty, tits proper that the law, which
should extend equal protection to men of
all colors and conditions, should extend
their remedial interposition, We think,
therefore. that the petitioner should be dis
charged from all custody and restraint,
and permitted to go free while he remains
under the protection Of orr laws. -.
:e..- -....