The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-08-03

thinks that this opposition to the Clayton bill
was owing to the absence of that clause.
But will show now that the senator claimed
upon that occasion positive Legislative protec-
ton for slave property and that it was the
absence of such provision that constituted the
ground of his dissent to the Clayton bill, al
though in the end he voted for it. These are
the words of the senator; and | am the more
gratifed at the opportunity to reproduce them
in the Senate, because they are very appropriate
to our present circumstances
''Again, he contented G.at Slavery could not eris
,oithoa Legislative protection. If a man should
take hundred slaves into one Of those foreign ter
ritores, and they should be disposed to rebel
against him, what law is there to which he can
appeal? And suppose man comes to steal his
slaves, to carry them to the Pacific, and the owner
threatens to appeal to the law: he will be answered.
you can do nothing--there is no law in the case.
There are many in his section of country disposed
to emigrate to California; but there was not one
who would be such dolt as TO carry slave there,
because he could not hold him, in consequence Of
the hands of the local authorities being tied up,
that they could not interfere on the subject of
slavery"
Yes, he contended at that time, thai slarery
could not erist Diih0ut Legislative protection L
II that proposition was true then, it is equally
so now If the absence of such protection in
the Clayton bill was an objection, how is it that
the bill he is now advocating finds favor with
him?
But undertook to show that the senator has
at this session expressed opinions upon this
subject which do not tally with his opposition
to his colleagues amendment nor with his OPP
position to protective legislation by Congress.
If he does not vote with us, it is because he
does not follow the opinions and argument of
the extract from one of his speeches, which
am about to read, to their logical sequence. He
addressed the Senate on the 10th May last, in
reply to some observations of mine. After
asserting for the inhabitants of our Territories
right to establish "social regulations for their
own protection and preservation" he proceeds
to say:
But, then, the sovereign States of this Union
have rightto enjoy and dispose Of the whole
Of all the States have right to equal particpancy
in the enjoyment thereof, which cannot be either
denied or conravened without the grossest injus-
tice. The citizens of all the States have right
to remove within the limits of these territories
with any property which they possess, and which
is recognized by the Constitution of the Union,
either generally or specially, and to demand re-
cogntion and protection Of it as such from the
Territorial government, so soon as it shall have
been established. The abolition or exclusion of
slavery from the limits of the territory is not at
all indispensable to the needful ends Of govern
ment. Therefore the Territorial government
established as it must be, under the paramount
authority of the Federal Constitution--can have
no authority to interpose impediments to the en-
joyment of the full rights Of property in slaves
secured by the Constitution, but is bound to con-
slider itself as under the most binding obligation
to preserve such rights OF property invioate, to
the full extent of it's capacity to do SO. Enter
tanning this view of the matter, | confess that
can see no necessity for any restriction being i'm
posed by Congress upon the Territorial govern
ment about to be established g in respect to the
system Of African slavery" If it should under
take to legisate for the prohibition or exclusion
Of slavery, such legislation would, in my judg-
ment, be mere ndllity; and.sd would the courts
of the country be bound to pronounce, were the
question raised before them. If territorial legis-
lation, protective of slavery, should be subjected
to the same test, cannot doubt that such egisla-
ton would be held valid. 1t really, therefore,
does seem to me, repeat, much better to adopt
no restriction upon this subject at all, and TO
leave the whole subject to the Territorial Govern
ments and the courts. | 1882. g, aa
Now, there are several points in this passage
Of his speech which deserve note. All the citi-
zens of all the States have equal right in the
"whole territorial domain of the republic" That
is the proposition of the first sentence We
agree in that The next sentence asserts that
all the citizens Of all the States have right to
remove within the limits of these Territories,
with any property which they possess, and
which is recognized by the Constitution Of the
Union, including, as he afterwards avows, slave
property. In all these things we agree. 1t next
asserts that the citizen thus removing with such
property to the territories has a right ''to
demand recognition and protection oftas such"
Still we agree. But he says this protection is
to be demanded "from the territorial legislature"
we say from Congress. The issue, then, upon
which we go before the South, is reduced to
this one point. We both agree that our con-
stituents have a right to 90 with their slaves to
the territories, and to demand "he recognition
and projection" of their property in them. This
right of our constituents he proposes to subject
to the control Of the first body of emigrants
who chance to locate upon the public territory,
while those with whom act claim the maintain
ance Of it at the hands of Congress as q duty.
Which of us is right? Why has the citizen
right to demand this protection for his slave
property in the territories Because its security
is right under the Constitution. And under
what government is the protection Of all the
confederate rights placed2 The United States
government, certainly How does the govern
ment set in action the irstrumentalities of pro-
lection! BY legislation. : Congress, therefore,
has the duty of legislating for the protection of
our constitutional rights, Why, then, is it that
the senator turns away from Congress, and
throws us upon the territorial governments for
the protective legislation which he admits is
indispensable to the security of slave property,
and which he declare is the right Of our constit-
uents to demand and enjoy! 1 " .uH1 rH
The territorial government he says, in sub
sequent sentence, must be established under the
paramount authority Of the Federal Constitution"
If So it is creature Of Congress, under the Con-
stitution. Its powers, then, are, by his admis-
sion, not original, but delegated, and it can only
receive, by delegation, such powers as Congress
itself possesses. If, therefore, the power and the
duty to protect slave property exist, as ne says,
in territorial government; it can only be because
that power and duty existed on the part of Con
gress first, and has been delegated. IT, then, 1T is
in the power Of the territorial government to give
recognition and protection to slave property, and
it is its duty give it, that power and that duty
are also and primarily in Congress Now, which
of us do best duty TO our constltuents-he who
demands Of Congress to discharge this duty in
the first instance, in order that our citizens may
90 with their slaves at once, and be independent