The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1848-08-26

"nation is bound TO recognize the stat
"of slavery, as To foreign slaves fopn,
"withiI its territorial dominions, whei
|"it is in opposition to its own polio,
sand institutions, in favor Of the sub
"jects of other nations where slavery
sis recognized. If it does it, it is as
"matter Of comfy, and not as matte
"of international right. The stale o
"Slavery is deemed to be mere munici
'.palregulation, founded upon and limit
''ed 10 the range Of the territorial la,os.'
lie Peters, Gil.
We will advance another idea OF
two and close. Suppose slave.holde
Of Kentucky should carry his slaves in
to California, by what laws would h,
bo governed in the holding ofhis slaves
there being no law in the territory up
on that subject? Would it be by the
laws of Kentucky or Of South Carroll
ma? Would the slaves from differ en1
States be governed by different laws
He who assumes the position thai
slaves could be held in California, where
there is no law upon the subject, must
also assume that they must be held un.
der the laws of the States from whence
they came; because slavery can only
exist by positive law. The laws Of
some of the slave States permit slaves
to be taught to read and write, whilst
others do not. Then the slaves from
Delaware would have advantages over
the slaves Of South Carolina, and all in
the same territory! If slave was
kidnapped in California, how would the
kidnapper be punished, if he could be
punished at all? By the laws of Della
ware or Kentucky? These questions,
we think, show the absurdity of the
position that slave.holders can carry
their slaves into California, and hold
them, without positive statute. In the
State of Ohio horse is exempt from
levy and sale upon execution; in Vir-
ginia this is not the case. Now if an
Ohioan and Virginian would each
take horse from their respective
States into the territory Of California,
would one be exempt from sale upon
execution and the other not? No. A
horse is property by the laws Of ma
tions, and both would be governed by
such laws if none other were in exis-
tence. A negro is not property by the
laws of nations, and as q matter O!
course would be free the moment he set
his feet on the free territory Of Califor-
mia. Because, by the decision of the
Supreme Court, above referred TO "the
state Of slavery is deemed to be mere
municipal regulation, founded upon and
limited to the range of the territorial
laws.' That is, by "lhe range Of the
territorial laws" we understand that
slavery cannot reach or extend beyond
the limits of the territory or the State
in which slavery exists. This is OBJ.
viously the meaning of the Supreme
Court. If so, a slave ceases TO be a |
slave the moment he is carried BY his
master into free territory. To prove
hat California is free territory, we
rave only to cite to the decree of the
United Mexican States, OF September
Is, 1929, by which it was decreed:
81. That slavery be exterminated in
he Republic.
$50. Consequently, those are free who
o this day have been looked upon as
laves."
We close this article for this week;
promising, however, to continue it in
future number, in which we will un.
|ertake to show that the position occu-
lied by Gen. Cass upon the subject of
lavery in the territories, is, and will be
S effectual in preventing the extension
# slavery as that Of any other position
hat can be occupied,
From the Washington Union.
General TayIOr's last!
Some days ago, when Gen. Taylor's ,
etter accepting the whig nomination