The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1848-08-30

private individual capacity. The relation
between master and slave is not public,
but private. personal relation; and this Prl-
vate right of the citizen the Constitution
guarantees. And this brings me to another
part of my argument.
All the guarantees of the Constitution IN
favor of persons arc absolute, and exist
whcreverthe Constitution is the supreme law
of the land. The guarantees to persons
have no reference to the Federal idea. TrI.
al by jury; compulsory process to compel
attendance of witnesses; exemption OF prop
erty from seizure for public use, except for
compensation, are immunItcs, not Of States
but citizens, and they apply not only to cii-
zens but to aliens. A Chinese who had first
touched our soil but yesterday, would be
entitled 10 these privileges: and if the Con-
sl:tution be the Constitution Of the Terrific
rics, as none will deny, he would be entitled
to them in the Territories
The gentleman from Indiana (Alr. Peltt)
asked my colleague (Mr. Rhetp whether a
citizen of South Carolina emigrating TO
territory remained still citizen of South
Carolina, and retained his inmunitIes as
such. 1t was a nugatory questions; for, as |
before said, citizenship is not necessary to
en,itle one TO the privileges in question. lfa
he would be entitled to purchase slave, and
purchasing him, he would at once be ent-
lied to all the guarantees OF tho Constitution.
Yes, sir. convict transported hIthcr for his
crimes, fresh from British penientiary,
could enjoy the guarantees ofthe Conslltu-
ton in South Coroina, that gentleman would
refuse 10 the soldiers of the Palmetto regI.
nlcnt, in the country they have helped TO
conquer. The nature and extent OF The
guarantees in question may be made perfect
ly plain.
Suppose that, instead of sovereign States,
the Union consisted Of dependent provinces,
as some desired it should do. And suppose
aIIth guarantees have enumerated remain.
cd the same they now arc, as the friends OF
consolidated government intended they
should do; for no one desired that the citizen
should he deprived of his rights and immu'
mites, though the States were deprived Of
their sovereignty. Is it not plain that no au-
thority could abrogate them, except an au-
thority competent to alter or amend tho
Constitution? TO wit: convention of the
whole Union. Now, what is the difference
between the powers of this Government
within the States, and within the territorial
districts! Within the States it is fedora
tive limited government, and will so contn-
ue until the districts become States. A clti-
Zen in a district bears the same relation to
this Government, that the citizens of the
State would all bear were the States re-
duccd TO dependencies. In State the i'm
munilies of the citizen are snbect to two
forms of convention: 4 convention OF the
State, and conventions OF all the States act
ing by specific majority of three -tourlhs.- -
In district, which has no sovereignty, the
citizen is subjected only to the national form
of conventions. There is, therefore, no au-
thoritv competent 10 abrogate the private
rights of persons in district, except con.
vcnton in the last mentioned form.
1t would seem, from what have just said,
that the co.equatv Of The States is not nee
essary to my argument: as State rights are
not involved in the question. Nor does the
argument appear to deperd upon the equal
ownership Of The people of the Union in the
public domain. The true foundation ap-
pears to be equality and universally of civil
rights and mmunitIes under the Constitution
of the United States, and the equal and uni
form action of that instrument upon all the
people Of tho Union. In regard to all per-
spnal guarantees. the Constitution OF the
United States act upon the people of the
Union as one mass, and the claim OF the cl-
zcns to these immunitcs are directly upon
the United States. and are irrespective and
Independent of State sovcrci gnty.
Having shown what arc The rig hts of all
| free inhabitants and citizens OF the United
States IN the territories, the question arises,
what action is it the duty of this Cove n
mcnt to take on the subject IN organizing
territorial governments!
Sir, this question is briefly answered.
The action of the Congress on the subject at
its first session, and afterwards, uuder the
Constitution, is conclusive.
At the very first session of Congress under
the present Constitution, in the fourth month
Of the session, territorial government iol
tho district south of the Ohio river was pro
vidcd. In the charter, there was an lnjunc
,ion laid upon the local legislature, to make
no law interfering with the rights of em
grants to take their slaves to the territory
This right had been violated by the ordn
ancc of 1887, and The Congress deemed j
its duty to prohibit the like for the future
and to sec to the faithful execution of TIT
Constitution by its subordinate government
The next wear charter of government
was provided for the district of Tennessee
and a clause was inserted prohibiting lh'