Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1848-08-30

nave OeeH OOtoInc0 al the expense OF the |
blood and treasure Of all the States. and
that. therefore, the citizens Of all the
States have equal rights in them. They
contend that assnorfhern men are permit
ted 10 GO there with their horses and cattle,
and every other species Of property they
possess, therefore southern men should be
permitted 10 go there with their slaves,
which is their property, and hold them. as
northern man would hold his horses
! will not deny that citizens Of the south
ern States are entitled to equal privileges
with those Of the North in our territories.
/ BY prohibiting slavery there we do not
propose TO disturb this equality. 4 north
ern man will have the right to 60 there with
his horses and cattle. Has not the south
crn man the same right! There is no
I species Of property which a northern man
may hold there. which may not equally be
held by southern man. We prohibit the
southern man from holding slaves there,
and the same prohibition extends to the
northern man. They are slike debarred
from holding human beings as property
there; where. then. is the inequality! IT
is no answer to this argument to say that
northern men would rot desire to hold
slaves there. or that their means are not
invested in that species OF property. Con-
gress. in the exercise of its power to legis-
late for the Territories. determines what
shall be the character of their institutions.
The laws and institutions thus given TO
the Territories must be contormed to by
all who go there, no matter from what
State they emiqrate No person can go
there and claim to enjoy the benefit Of
institutions prohibited there, merely be-
in fit i'm no
State from which he emigrated. Yet such
is the position asserted by those who adj
vocated the right Of southern men to hold
slaves there.
Slavery has no existence by the law Of
nature. The right Of one man to hold an
other as a cliarel-to compel him to la
Dor for his convenience-to sell him as
he would horse-is a right which ex-
lists only by virtue ofthe the municipal law.
! Such relation can only exist where it is
created by positive Legislative enactment.
The black man has as strong natural
right to hold u white man as his slave, as
the white man has to hold him. The right
belongs to neither to hold the other in
bondage. 1t is a relation created be-
tween them by superior power. Where
the legislative power of a State has crea-
ted this relation, and ordained slavery,
there it exists, and nowhere else. The
moment the slave passes beyond the
limits Of that State, with the consent Of
his master, his shackles fall from him, and
he becomes free. The free air of State,
where this institution does not exist, dis
solves his chains. This principle has been
SO often recognised and decided by the
highest courts Of the country, that its cor
RICHNESS is universally admitted. No de-
cison to the contrary can be found even
from the courts Of southern States.
In the case Of Harvey rs. Decker and
| Hopkins, w alker's Rep, So the Supreme
Court Of Mississippi declares, ''that slave-
ry does not exist by the law of nature"
and it adds, ''it exists and can only exist
through municipal regulations"
| The same court, in Jones' case, Walk
] er's Rep, 83. says: I'm the Constitution
Of the United States slaves are expressly
designated as persons
I '.The right of master exists, not by force
Of the law Of nature or nations, but by
virtue only Of the positive laws of the
State"
| In the case Of Lumsford rs. Coquilion.
IL Martins Rep. 4Ol, the Supreme Court
Of Louisian ma, declares:
The relation Of owner and slave, in the States
Of this Union in which il has a legal existence,
is creature Of municipal law"
Tho supreme court Of kentucky, in the
case Of Rankin rs. Lydih, 3 Marsh, 47O,
says:
State. but we consider that as a right existing by
a positive law Of a municipal character, without
foundation in the law Of nature
I Numerous other decisions Of tho Same
character might be- cited to esta blish tho
same position, but it would DO n work Of
superorogntion. believe the principle is
not denied by any one.
IL, then, slavery only exists by munich
pal regula,ion-if the right OF the master
to hold his slave is confined to the limits
within which tho municipal powor creating
this regulation possesses a jurisdiction.
how can this regulation be extended be.
You'd NJ South Carolina can give tho mas.
ter authority over his slave within her own
limits. Blu, can she extend TO him that
authority in Oregon or California;! 1t
would be prcpos.er ous 10 contend that sho
could. Aud yet the position southern gen.
tlemcn contend for amounts to this. Sup
pose that, by the laws Of South Carolina.
poly gnmy should DO allowed, would the
South Carolinian have right to marry
and live with rs many wives as he chose
in Oregon. merely because the laws Of
South Carolina tolerated so great barba-
risml Ii appears to mo that his right TO
carry a multiplicity Of wives there would
DO as complete as his right 10 carry his
slaves. Ii. as is con,ended, neither Con-
gross nor the territorial legislature can
|. prohibit him from holding slaves there,
neither could prohibit him from living with
"a many wives his tasso or fancy nigh,
dictate.
1t may be true. rs general proposition.
that the citizeos Of all the States have
right to 60 into the Territories belonging
to the United States with their property.
! But this must be understood rs applying
only to such things as arc considered pro-