The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-08-11

In stating, the other day, the docirnal part Of
Mr.. Calhoun's late address in relation to the sub
ject Of slavery in the Territories we said we were
unable to understand it. No reflection we have
been able to give it lessons the difficulty. There
is no indisnetness in the connection of the PROPOSE
tons, What Mr.. Calhoun means to say he has
said plainly enough. But the practical workings
of his doctrines in their application to the territory
remain ineomprehensible by our understanding,
His theory is that all rights of property arise from
local law, generally by prescription anterior to
any legal enactment, and that property in slaves is
the oldest Of all, having existed by prescription
older than any known legislation; that by the ma
ture Of our government, Congress has no power of
legislation over the Territories belonging to the
Union, either to establish or to abolish any rights
Of property, and consequently can neither establish
abolish slavery; but that by virtue of the Con-
sttuon it is bound protect the rights Of property
in the Territories just as they exist in the States of
the Union, which are joint owners of the territory.
In simpler FORM the local law in respect to proper
~, of each and every State, extends to the Terri,
tories, and the rights Of the citizen of each and
every State, as they exist in that State, must be
preserved for him in the Territories.
This is all smooth enough as theory, though
some formidable points might be raised against it
but we have not seen any Ineligible explanation of
the mode in which it is expected to work in prac-
tice. We understand, as declared, that every man
carries with him portion of the sovereignty of
his State as on board of national ship, or indeed
a merchant vessel, the flag carries with it the law
Of property and other rights Of the place to which
the ship belongs. But how are these local laws
and rights to be preserved to each, in country
peopled by mixed body of emigants, accustomed
at home to various and opposing systems. The
sovereignty Of Massachusetts denies the right of
properly in slaves; the sovereignty of Georgia
maintains slave property. Can the Georgian hold
slaves in California. and must the Massachusetts
man be forbidden to purchase the same slaves! or
if permitted to purchase, are they 10 become free
by virtue of the MASSACHUSETTS, law There are
in some States restrictions the alienation Of this
sort Of property, as there are in others upon real
estate. In Wisconsin and Iowa there il a home
ead-e1emptOn law, which secures a certain tract
of land against execution for debt. In Louisiana
we have peculiar laws about the rights of married
women, and the course of descents in particular
cases. These create legal rights, which, by the
theory we treat Of, go with the citizen into the
Territory. Can a Wisconsin man claim the ex.
empdon from liability for debt for his land in Cal
ilornia, as he could on the Western shore of Lake
Michigan! and have the wives of Louisiana there
higher privileges in the property of their husbands
than the helpmeets Of the skipper from New Lon.
don or the trader from New York; How are Joint
interests to be provided for, when the partners per-
haps husband and wife, come from different sove.
reignties, and Unexpectedly become possessed of
property which is differently regarded by the local
laws at homel
We might multiply these cases infinitely, to show
the ine1tricable confusion which would follow the
adoption of The theory that all the laws Of all the
States, which define or recognize the rights of
property, are in operation at the same time in the
same place, and that it is the duty of the Federal
Government to protect the citizens of each in the
same rights they had at home.
All the dissertations Of the friends of this theory
have always stopped at the point of offering it as
the constitutional doctrine. None of them, 10 our
knowledge, has ever attempted to describe in De.
tail how it is to be put into practice or the ma.
ehinery Of government by which it is to be en-
forced. 1t would be a qualification to US to see
some Ineligible explanation on this head, for on
that depends all the practical use of the theory
for of what sort of value is doctrine of rights,
which is incapable Of being embodied in any ad.
miaisIEaliys system.