The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-08-16

We are thankful TO the Mobile Register eo.si
pains il has taken to enlighten us as TO tbet ~
operations Of Mr.. Calhoun's theory in r,,t ~ 49,
rights Of property in the Territor IN 1900
sorry to say that our perplexitieg
BY is kindly Instructions. .A.-A Il. s,,,.5
Inc position Of Mr.. ca 81 snnIicstion 8. a
9 allileult to apprehe9. tbat All ne laws Of all
-. ~ s. and regulate the rights Of
,,rors.,.. Sration al the same time in the
rsIs;,si ~ that it is the duty of the Federal
to protect the citizens Of eaeh in the
49,. ats that they had at home. We suggested
4 y. cases Of conflict between those laws, and
-dong them that Of slave-holding. The law Of
Georgia recognizes property in slayes-the lazy Of
Massachusetts denies it. Now, if the citizens Of
each State carry the laws Of the local sovereignty
with them the Georgian might hold slaves, and the
Massachusetts man could not. The Georgia man
might sell his slave--but the Massachusetts man
could neither buy nor hold. That is what we I'M
delstand by the doctrine that each citizen is to be
projected in the Territories IN the rights as they ex
list in the State Of which he is a citizen, and the
additional doctrine which is maintained by Mr..
Calhoun, that the. General Government is as impo.
tent by its very nature for the creation ofany new
rights Of property as to abolish any old right The
character Of the citizen and Of the institutions
which he bears determine the degree Of projection
he can claim in the Territories. ANY enlargement
or diminuEion Of the rights Of the individual must
arise from considerations independent Of the CON
sttutions and these Mr.. Calhoun rigidly rejects.
But the Register while calculating to ussthe ope-
ration ofths theory, which devoves on the General
Government the duty Of administering thirty codes
in the same Territory reduces it ia fact to one CODE
by q process not to be found in the theory itself
L assumes that there is some general law, and law
Of nations, which the General Government must
recognize, independent Of State laws and which
would exist if all the State laws were abolished.
The force Of this position is made to give to the cit
liens in the Territories rights positively withheld
by the States Of which they are citizens. Thus, a
New Highlander may purchase and hold slaves in
the Territory as well as though he were Geor
gan Or a LOuisianian, although SUCH ownership
is prohibited at home. We submit to the Register
again. for its solution, part Of the difficulties with
which this view still embarrasses us. Does it not
change totally the terms in which Mr.. Calhoun's
theory is announced by Itself The second clause
Of its statement of the theory is that the Consti-
tuition Of the United States guarantees to the citi.
zsns Of each State, while in the Territories, the
rights to whatever things they may have owned in
their respective Sates7 Its illustrations of this
position assume that this Constitution also extends
to each all the rights enjoyed by the citizen of all
the other States, and therefore repeals to each cit
zen all the conflicting restrictions and limitations
Of law as they exist within his own State. Il is
plain, therefore, that by the force of the Constitu
ton all the laws of every State which restrict its
citizens from the ownership Of property, as enjoyed
in any other State are void and there becomes only
one code, instead Of thirty codes. But what then
has become Of the Limitations, SO strongly insisted
upon, against the power Of the Federal Government
to enforce in the Territories any laws conflicting
with those Of any Of the States and what is
the value of the definition that rights are enioyed
in the Territories only by virtue Of citizenship ia
some particular State
It would not be difficult, we think, to show that
the Register is explaining the operation of Mr.. Cal
houn's views upon principles which Mr. Calhoun
excludes. But we havesaid enough for the present,
% show, that though in a very tsachahle humor |
we are far from being enlightened as to the practi-
'a workings Of Mr. Calhoun's theory as he wrote it.
-a@8-
~ The q. s. District Attorney, in closing the |
argument for the prosecution in the Rey case,
stated that he appeared rather as a friend Of the
court than as prosecutor. Yet the Honorable
Attorney did not scfupe to state his firm belief that
the man conveyed from the Mary Ellen to the An
drew Ring was not Rey but bank delaulter-
meaning, we suppose, Mr. Dupessis. Now in adj
diton to there being no evidence in support of such
a suspicion, it is certain that Mr. Duplessis did not
leave the bank on Canal street until the morning of
the 9TH july and the Mary Ellen sailed on the
5th. Yet the District Attorney says he is not sus-