The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-09-22

II the citizen had brought his horse to Massachusetts
he would, of COURSE have remained his property still, be-
the horse like any property everywhere
the subject Of ownership IT. the other hand the slave
escape from South Carolina and fugitive free
State the authorized by the constitution retake
him wherever he find him. for the purpose of carrying
him back the State under whose laws he held to
vice or labor.
But the convention which formed the federal
though they recognised slavery existing the States
which tolerated in regard held labor by their
laws carefully excluded from the constitution express
sion that might be construed into admission that there
could be property Mr. Madison objected to clause
as It was originally reported on the ground that II ad-
mtted that there could be property men," idea which
he thought it wrong admit the constitution" and
it was altered in conformity with his wishes.
What them is the property which save-owner has IN
his save' II Just that power which the laws of the State
Territory in which he resides confer If those laws 40
recognise slavery there existing nothing for the
laws of the State he has left have ceased operate ln
every community in which the law of nure uncontrolled
by positive all free and equal in regard to their
personal rights. Slavery status contrary to the law
of 1t had its origin in force, and exist legal
relation only by positive law This is the doctrine of
the free States alone has the sanction OF the highest judi
cial authority in the slave States well as in the free In
volume Of reports by the honorable Secretary of the Fea
Wakers Rep 36 is contained the opinion of the su
preme Of Mississippi that
"Savery is condemned by and by the laws Of
nature II exists and can exist only through nunicp II
| regulations"
In the volume, p. 80, it is said by the court
'In the constitution of the United States slaves ex
pressly designated persons The right of the master
virtue only OF the positive law OF the State"
The supreme of the State of Louisiana in
reported in 18th of Martin 4O4, that the relation Of
and slave in the States of this Union in which has
legal existence, is a Of the municipal law
The supreme court Of kentucky, also, in Marshall 47O
say:
"savery sanctioned by the laws of this State, but
consider that right existing by positive law OF nit
ncpai character, without foundation in the law OF nature
This, too is the doctrine of the law, and fully
sanctioned and sustained by the Supreme Court of the Un
lad tutao that uyban tho
declared that slavery should exist the territory north
of the Ohio all slaves then there afterwards brought
there by their masters, became free.
If the proposition of the honorable senator from South
Carolina be true, it would follow that the moment foreign
territory acquired by treaty otherwise becomes
insai slave territory having local laws to sustain the un
natural relation of and savelaws which be
abrogaed while the territorial shall endure
should like know what sort of slave laws would come INTO
by virtue of the action of the President and
the formation of treaty. of the operation OF the
constitution Of the United States proprio pgore the terri
tory acquired The property Of the South Carolina slave
holder Just that control the life of another which the
laws of that State give him. The property Of Delaware
STAKEHOLDER being that alone which the mder laws of Della
confer quite another thing The offspring of the
are slaves for life while those of the for
time. Which of these slave laws spring into exist
the Territories of the United Staes Or the in
habans and authorities to be required to become
skilled in the slave laws all the States be able to ad
minister them in all their variety? No, Unless slave
law enacted by Congress- by the people of the Terri
tory by their authority the natural law of liberty as pro-
claimed by fathers, will remain in full force And who
there with his slave, comes into jurisdiction
where no law exists to retain him in servitude.
But sir if this universally conceded to be the law,
would leave matter Of doubt, in the organization
ofa territory free Not only there slave law
exisng in Oregon, but the people have endeavored by
fundamental law, themselves against the introduce
ton of slavery. Why should the people of the United
State desire nfict them, with all its attendant evils
Will the people of the United States be benefited by so
doingi will the people of Oregon be benefed Senators
who oppose this prohibition admit that in It's practical opera
ton, public interest will be preudced by it, They say
that slavery be probably introduced into Oregon
Then why suffer the prohibition coninue? Other
Senators very different opinion. There no
thing nvdious in this prohibition is in accordance with
policy universally approved at the organization OF the
government and which has mmorazed the names of the
authors of the ordinance of 1887 The Territory equally
open immigration of the free aborers of the southern
as well Of the northern States The number of slave
holders relation to the entire free population OF the south
States, is comparatively small large proportion OF
the emigrans from the south not shareholders They
60 TO avoid the evils Of system which inevitably tends to
the dshonor Of free labor and to subject them and their
families nnumerable privatons To those who desire
emgate with their slaves immense and fertile regions
open and unoccupied far exceeding in extent the
territory which invites the settlement of the free aborer OF
the north and south.
We are here legislae this question American
statesmen for the promotion of the common welfare and
not of merely sectional interests The territories acquired
by this beyond the limits Of the States must be
completely subject to It's Jurisdiction, IN all proper sub
ects of legislation, those State to the jurisdiction
of State The people of the territories hav
constitutional rights, SUCH until they are extended to
ton and in every act for the government OF territory
preposterous claim them that in territory beyond
the jurisdiction of any State whose Inhabitants have ceased
to be the of any Sate-a territory which slavery
has existed it's exclusion accordance with the de-
sire of inhabitants be regarded violation OF
State individual rights under the constitution OF the United
States No citizen has any such interest ia the common
property Union render unjust for Congress
deny him the right of settling upon with his slaves
So would be equally give power to the people
to exclude him. by their admission the Union Stale
so long any portion Of the soil within its limits continued
to be tho property Of the United States IL competen
for the State of Virginia. Massachusetts, Connecticut,
New York to prohibit the continuance of slavery within
those States respectively follows that there nothing ir
of slave property which prevents 1t from being
the object of exclusion by any exercising the
powers sovereignty the territory OF the United States
without the limits Of State The clause in the constitu
ton of the United States providing for the surrender
fugitive slaves, implies the truth of the principle have as
serted By that article slaves regarded persons from
whom service may be DUE under the laws of the States
which slave laws force and the right keep them there
in servudc by of those laws declared and secured
This right being acknowledged that extent only, fol
lows that an escape by slave, or his forcble abduction
from the State whose laws hold him in servtude is regarded
as violation Of duty; a wrongful ACT, which, conse
a freeman in the State which he has ed or been forcoy
carried desire to retake him for the purpose
subiectng him again servtude in the State from whcf
no ed The provision applies equally to the relation
of master and apprentice for time The provision IN the
constitution il founded principle somewhat analogous
to which provides for the surrender OF fusves IRON
Justice II gives exra-terorial force to the local law jus
20 far as is necessary prevent the fugitive from gaining
his liberty, by what the law OF his domich regards as
wrongful But has been invariably decided that TN
owner of q slave voluntarily takes HIM into State wher
no law exists impair the natural equality Of rights, thu