Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1848-11-23

I
creion, whilst the o her involves the highest dis
cretionary power known to our system of gov
eminent. An argument drawn from an analogy
of this sort would be denying to the legislature
a discretion i'll this matter, because similar dis
erection is not attached to legal trustee.
Equally unfortunate was the Senator's analogy
which he endeavored to derive from comparison
Of the common property Of the people of these
States IN their territories To an ordinary partner.
ship Had the Senator taken The case of a cor
poration acting by the will of the majority, he
would have found closer analogy. The inter
est Of the people of these States in the Terrific.
rles is CORPORATE interest. The Senator from
Georgia, (Mr BERRrEN) adopts this analogy, and
he cites Vattel to establish the position, that al
though corporation may, by vote of the major
ity, regulate the mode in which each corporator
may enjoy his corporate property, it cannot de-
prive him of that property. He need not have
cited authority for n position so obviously Just
and one which no one, | trust, is disposed to
question. Sir, shall endeavor to show that this
question of the admission of slavery into these
/ Terri cries IS not question Of right, but one
which relates to The mode of enjoyment, and in
that light is a question of expedlency only.
Sir, the argument of the honorable Senator
from South Carolina Mr. CALnouN) and the
honorable Senator from Georgia mr. BERRIEN,
IS in substance this: These Territories, it is said
are the common property of the Union the cit
liens of each and every State have equal rights
and privileges in relation to them 1t is insisted
that the citizens of every State have an equal
right to emigrate to and dwell in those terrific.
RIGS, and to carry thther and retain their proper.
ty-that il to say, their slaves And it il fur
Their insis ed, thai any act of Congress which in.
terieres with this right, and prevents the trans
fer OF this description of pronerty is 4 violation
OF The rights Of the Slavehodinr States, dc4truc-
tive OF their interests, and of that equality OF
right oh is assumed to exist Such procee-
ding, it is said, is virtually approprilting the
common property of the Union to the use and
benefit of one portion Of the people to the exclu.
sion Of others
Sir in every aspect of this argument and in
all It's parts it is itlacous. So far as it is built
upon the supposed inequality between those who
are assumed 10 have equal rights | confess II is
beyond my comprehension.
Whatever may be the determination of Con
gresS, whether any restriction is imposed in re
latlon to slavery, or whether it ia admitted free
ly and without restriction, every citizen OF the
United States stands upon the same footing. II
it be admitted, he may either take his slaves
there or nor, as he pleasss. Whatever may be
the decision of Congress in regard to this mat
ter, all stand upon the same footing the rule is
uniform. If slaves are admitted, are they not ad
mitted tor the benefit of all? And if they are
excluded, are they not excluded for the benefit
OF all?
| Although am not disposed to question The
| general truth Of the proposition upon which tbs
argument rests, to wit, that every citizen has
right to emgrate to the Territories with hi,
property, am disposed to deny its application
And in order to determine how far it is appllca
bis, 10 the question leio-e 40, - bssomes neees
: rv tn hat 10 ~ nrnn II
slaves. 1t Is property founded upon a domestic
relation, and may be compared to the nieres
which parent has IN the services of his child
and 1t bears still closer semblance to the rea
ton of master ana servant; for, let me remark
/ the Constitution Of the United States denom
mates slaves not as property, but as "personS
held to service" which is IN my judgment the
proper designation. The property which mas
ter has In the services OF his slave, if you choose
to adopt that language, is the property which the
master has in his apprentice. This propert,
then, Is dependent upon domestic relation, il
is incident TO it, and can exist nowhere where
that domestic relation does not exist. The nex
inquiry Is, whether this domestic relation is
subject of local legislation? The Senator from
Georgia asked, with good deal OF emphasis
whether. If master from Slate in the Union
where apprenticeship is recognized, takes hi;
apprentice 10 part of the Union where 1t is mo-
recognized, he will lose the services of his an
prentice? | answer, PROFESSIONALLY, yes the
apprentice being subject to the local jurisdiction
only, and the local power being as applicable tC
the relations OF master and servant it is to an,
other question that can arise in connection will
mere municipal regulations. But there is anoth
er principle which stands in the way of the ar.
gunent OF the Senator from Georgia. The Sen
alor must be aware that when he removes witt
| OrOUprtV n iuriS uIciiDn hp hollis Nh At
properly subject to tho local legislation OF suct
new jurisdiction Sir, what is the prlnclple tia
obtains throughout the civilized world upon this
very subject? Is it not the common judgment
of the whole civilized world, that slave ,aker
into jurisdiction where slavery - not recog
Missed becomes ipso facto free: Is not this the
doctrine of every civilized nation upon earth
And is it not the doctrine that is recognize | by
every State in The Union? This property is
what? Is it that species of property which il
is recognized every where No, sir. Ant
here is another difficulty in the argument o
honorable gentlemen. When they tell me tina
ctlzegs of every State have right 20 iuratt
to the Territories Of the United States and hol,
their property there, answer, that you may car
ry such property as Is recognised as such every
where by the common consent Of nations and thu
Commercial world, but you cannot carry with yol
the peculiar regulations of your own country
which create property that ~ unknown elsa
where. The Senator from Georgia saw tit t,
denomnate this distinction as a cmunera of tn,
Imagination. II II is, 1t has found its way int
the Imagination and into the jurisprudence, an
commended itself to the judg of every civ
illzed people. Ii there be no distinction betwocl
this species of property and that kind OF proper
~ which is recognized everywhere, how happen
1t that the title OF the properly 10 lost by carry
-, "a, iuri -di "A annfhprS If M
carry your mechandzs tron Virginia to New
England it will be Recognized there as fully AM
as absolutely as The property ottheir own people
but il you take thlse persons who are held II
slrvllude, they recognize no such property, an,
under that jurisdiction, they necessarily becon
free. Ii YOU take your cotton or merchandise o
any description to England, your right to il I:
4 recognized and protected by the law OF nations
any unlawful interference with that property be
cones subject OF national discussion, ana !
unatuned tor, legitimate cause OF war Is /
SO with this species OF property Will Grel
Brl;aIn admit your right to follow your fugitive
slaves thore, or will you make It cause OF wa
II she does no;? The Senator ton Georsi
himself admitted that II a master take his slave
into free State voluntarily, It Ia a virtual man
omission. lfyou take property thcn to Oregon
| You hold 1t there subject to tho local laws an
It you take persons there whom you call proper
" and they do not, your title is lorielted. Thi
Is admitted to be principle of law by gentle
men OF the slayeholding States. am lntl
- IL. A