Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1848-09-16

sworn duty to withhold, if he had not been
satisfied that all the provisions Of the bill
were in conformity to the constitution
The present President, also slave. holder,
elected from slave-holding State, with
large portion of his cabinet in the same sit.
uation, has given the highest sanction TO the
doctrine we contend for that is known TO
our institutions; and although he felt him.
self called upon to make an extra message,
setting forth his reasons for believing tina,
the restrictions ought not to be applied to
our Mexican territories, he does not take
the slightest notice of the constitutional
objection on which so many Southern
States had based their opposition to the
general measure. This branch of the sub.
ect has been thus, and we hope forever,
disposed Of
II is further commended that slaves are
so far to be regarded as property as to au.
thoriZe their owners 10 carry them into any
of the territories, and to hold them there,
notwithstanding any act which Congress
may pass upon the subject. IF Congress
have the constitutional power 10 prohibit
slavery in the territories, its laws place the
subject on the same footing there. as the
State laws do in the States. As well, there
fore, might the holder contend that he
can bring his slaves into territories, where
slavery is prohibited by Congress. If his
slave runs away. and enters one of the non.
slave.holding States. he does not thereby
become free, but shall be delivered up up.
on the claim Of the person entitled to his
services. But this is not in consequence of
the recognition of the right of property in
such person, notwithstanding the State
laws; but in virtue Of an express article of
the constitution, which constitutes one of
its compromises upon the subject of slave
~. This view of the matter was placed
in clear light in the recent Debates by
one of the Oldest and most distinguished
members of the Senate, when he insisted
that the claim, on the part of the slave. hol
ders, though nominay to remove their
property, was in reality, to transport their
laws into the territories. One has, there.
fore, only to imagine territory governed
by the various and conflicting laws of ,hir-
,y independent States, to appreciate the ab.
surdily Of the pre,ension.
But it is insisted that the prohibition car.
ries with it a reproach to the slave hold
ing States, and that submission TO it would
degrade them. This is obviously the prn-
cipa if not the material, ground of oppo-
sition 10 the measure that is persisted IN;
and most assuredly, if it were well found.
ed, we would have no just ground to take
exception 10 the earnestness with which il
is sustained. LIE, the objection, therefore,
be fairly and dispassona,ely considered
Very erroneous opinions of the DISPOSE
tons of the northern people are entertained
by those who think them capable of desi.
: ring the degradation of any of the States
: of the confederacy, whether they be slave
holding or otherwise. They entertain toe
enlightened a sense of their own interests
they have just conception of the true glo
" ry Of the confederacy, and of the eXten
: to which the humiliation of a part woul(
would tarnish the lustre of the whole, ant
e they are, above all, too national in thei
u feelings, not to cherish deep soiicitudt
j. for the honor and welfare of all its mem
c bers. If they could, therefore, believ,
J that the success of this measure woult
J. draw after it such grave consequences the,
n would be among the last 10 uphold it.
il could have such tendency. it will Ger
: tanly not be owing TO any want of gener
4. ali'y in its application.
The restriction will, of course, be obig
: tory on all who settle in the territories
g from whatever Slate or country they may
: have emigrated. They will ALL in this res
! pect stand upon an equal footing. If an!
! inhabitant of any of the non.slave- hodin!
States, who removes TO the territories ha
his capital invested in business transaction
. which are not permitted by the laws of tn
\ territory, he must change the investment
4 If slave holder desires to remove there
- he must dispose of his slaves, and emplo
. free labor as his countrymen and neighbor
- did, when they removed TO different poi
tons of the north western territory, an
in doing so made themselves prosperou
g con,enled and happy.
Let US look for moment at the charat
:. =, ter of this measure, and compare it wit
v, others that have gone before it. II is re
~ enactment of the ordinance Of 1897, whic
y prohibited the introduction of slavery il
- to territories which had been coded by Sc
y eral of the States 10 the United States.-
= The difference between the effects of II
~ two measures, consists only in the fac
- that the territory TO which the ordinan'
- of 81 was applied, was, previous to its Sc
~ sion, subject to the introduction of SLAYER
- whilst the territory 10 which it is no
~ ~ sought to he applied, had at the time of t
- cession to us. been already exempted fro
80 . il by law. Who first proclaimed the pri
:" cple which triumphed in the enactment
III the ordinance of 1887! Thomas Jefferso
:. Who promoted and secured its passa
=, through the Continental Congress!