Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1848-07-26

pie in the laws Of nations, norsn the CON-
mon law, as between sovereignties, which
authorizes reception of a fugitive slave.
These principles will not be disputed by a.
ny one who has examined the decisions Of
the court of the United States.
Under the Articles of Confederation there
was provision for the return of fugitives
from justice but none in regard TO abscond-
ing slaves. There was therefore, no obi
CATION on free State, unless imposed by
its own laws,to deliver up slave; nor was
there any legal means, through which the
master could claim the fugitive. The IN
convenience and collision which frequently
arose from this state Of things led to the a.
bove provision in the Constitution,
The power to institute slavery belongs
exclusively to the community in which it
exists. In the language of Chief Justice
Taney, in Groves Us Slaughter, Is Peters,
sos, State has right to decide itself
whether it will or will not admit slavery
to be brought within its limits from anoth.
er State, either for sale or any other pur.
pose; and also to prescribe the manner and
mode in whichthey may be introduced,ond
to determine their condition and treatment;
and this action cannot be controlled by
Congress, either by virtneof its power to
regulate commerce, or 81 virtue of any
other power conferred BY the constitution
Of the U. S.
And in the case Of Prigg Us. the Com.
monwealth Of Pennsylvania, l6 Peters, s,61l,
the Supreme Court says; "The state of
slavery is deemed to be mere municipal
regulation, founded upon and limited
to the range of the territorial law;" and
ssit is manifest from this consideration, that,
if tpe constitution had not contained the
clause for reception, every non-slavehold-.
ing State in the Union would have been at
liberty TO have declared free all runa-
way slaves coming within its limits,
and to have given them entire immunity
and protection against the claims of their
masters"
The true construction of the constitution
is, that implied powers can only be exer-
cised in carrying into effect specific pow
er And this implication is limited to such
measures as shall he appropriate to the sub.
iect. This is an admitted and safe rule of
construction. 1t is believed to be the only
one which has been sanctioned by states
man and jurists. Powers exercised beyond
this are not derived from the constitution
but must depend upon an unlimited discre-
ton And this is despotism.
Now, there is no specific power in the
constitution, which authorizes the organi-
of a Territorial Government. Such a
power was given in relation to the district
Of Columbia, and it was equally necessary
in regard to other Territories. But if this
power be implied from the specific power
given to regulate the disposition of
the public lands, it must under the above
rule, be limited to the means suitable to the
end in view. IfCongress 60 beyond this
in the organization Of Territorial Gov.
ernment, they act without Limitation, and
may establish a monarchy. Admit that
the may organize Government, which
shall protect the lands purchased, and pro-
vide for the administration of Justice among
the settlers, it does by no means follow
that they may establish slavery. This is a
relation which must be created by the To-
cal sovereignty. 1t is a municipal regu-
lation Of limited origin. 1t is domestic
relation, over which the Federal Govern
ment can exercise no control. And above
all, the institution of slavery is not within
any implication which can be drawn from
the power to regulate and dispose of the
public lands or other properly of the United
States. AS before remarked, slaves are
not treated in the constitution as property.
They are made property by the local law.
The Supreme Court of the United States
have decided that, under the power to regu-
late commerce among the States, Congress
; could not interfere with the slave trade be.
tween the States. And with how much
greater propriety and force of argument
could such power be sustained than the
power to establish slavery in territory
In the latter there is nothing from which
the power can be implied, while the former
is admitted to include all commercial deal
ing among the States. And it was upon
the ground that in the Constitution slaves
we're treated as persons and not as proper
tv. that they were held not to come within
the commercial power. If Congress, un-
der any implied power may institute slave
ry in a Territory Of the United States, on
much stronger grounds may they exercise
the commercial power over the transfer
and sale of slaves among the states.
In the territory of Louisiana and Flori-
da Congress recognised and,to limited ex-
tent, regulated slavery. But, as before re-
marked, slavery existed in those territories
at the time they were ceded to the United
States; and, in the treaty Of cession of Lou
: isiana, the United States bound themselves
to protect the property Of the citizens
Slaves in that territory were considered as
property, land were within the treaty. And
it is singular that this fact in the Missouri
controversy was not, believe, relied upon
by the South. 1t was the strongest posi-
j. ton that could have been taken on that
side of the question.
Iffree territory be admitted and Congress
have not power to institute slavery within
!, it, the territory must remain free until the
people shall form State Government, then
the question may arise, in the exercise of
this sovereign power whether slavery shall
be admitted.
E Can the President and Senate by a treaty
establish slavery in the new territory?-
Such power is hot found in the consttu-
ton nor in the laws of nat ions.
On the 25th February, 1870, North
Carolina ceded to the Union territory
which now constitutes the State of Tennes-