Holly Springs gazette., 1850-01-18

3Ee correctness OF iiNS P05tl'n WIN not
he Denied, 1t follows That CeEc"' IS can
exercise nc powers hGt S0rh "a arr rE-
prcssly granted in the constitution, Or
gach rs. are essential, a, Incidents, to the
carrying into effect expressed grants.
Does the constitution any WhCl" grant
10 Congress the power to Interfere with
or destroy the private tights to property,
in slaves or in anything else which a
citizen OF the United States May lnW.uiy
possess? The exercise of suth II power
is rot only without authority, but is tor
eign to, and opposed to the purposes tor.
which the Federal Government WAS Gre
ated it was not formed to destroy tie
rights of the people, as recognized hy7he
municipalities oftheir respective States,
but its province is to attend to the gene
al interests of all the States, and ito pro
vide for the common detcRce, and the gen,
eraI welfare of the Unted States. - DO
the words ''corsmon deftacc,' mean the
protection of our lives, only, and not OF
our property also? Willlt be contcnded
that while Congress is bound TO protect
the citizen, it is at liberty to dcdrQy his
property, Or his right to hold and enjoy it?
does not the obligation to "provide for
the common defence" extend to the pro-
perty of our citizens, as well as to their
persons? The answer to these questions
must be in the affirmative. Congress,
therefore, haspower, and is bound to pro-
tect, but has no power to destroy prop
erty or the rights to property. The OBJ
ligaton to protect is wholly irreconcla-
BILE with the exercise oil power to deS-
sroy our property.
But to what extent does this obliga-
flon to defend, or project the rights OF the
United States, or the people thereof.
reach? Doubtless, to all cases beyond
the Jurisdiction of the municipal power
or authority of the respective States, and
Wherever Our citizens, OIL their property,
may yighltAy GO They may righJMy
go with their property on the high seas,
DOR this is the common right ofm n0tioaS,
and they may rightfN3g go to the terrific
ries of the United States, for the terrific
ties are common property Of M the St0tcS'
The possession of one legal right, cannot
destroy another legal right. The citizens
of the North and South are equalin rights
so far as those rights appertainto the CO.
estate of the United States: and as Con.
gress has no right to interfere with, or
control the rights existing under the mu-
nicipal laws of any State, ii a citizen OF
the non slavchoIding States can settle in
the territories, with the tcg@ property
which he possessed under the laws Of
his State, then, citizen ofthr slave states
may settle there also with the lcgai pro-
property which he possesses under the
laws of his State, IT he cannot, then
the possession of one legal right, under
the laws of slave State, destroys ano-
ther legal right secured by the laws oI
the United States, and, therefore, the
people of the United States are not equa
in Iiehts-a position which, apprehend
few will have :he boldness to maintain.
That Congress has no right to interfere
with ther rights ofproperty in slaves, May
think, be shown by another cunAdera
1ion, Slavery existed prior TO and lnde
pendent of the constitution. 1t was no
created by the constitution, nor is it De
pendent upon it for its continuance. i
woeld legally survive the destruction o
both the constitution and the Union. i
was IA vested right before the existence
of the constitution and by Il universally
acknowled principle OF law, no subse
quent act oflegsaton can destroy a pre-
existing, vested right. 4 sovereign STATE
would not be permitted by its Judiciary
to perpetrate such an outrage. II th'
sovereign States OF this Union canno
destroy by legislation pre-cXisting righ
how can their mere agent do tina. WhIcI
its creator cannot doE
Recent developements however, hay,
convinced my mind that the passage q
the Wiimot proyso IS not seriously in
tended. 4 show of such intention ma,
be continued for a time, to intimi1at
Shareholders from removing to the tn
territories, until another measure, effect
ing the same object, can be conSumma
ted. allude to the late movements i
California, in holding a convention an
framing a constitution, embracing th
Wilmot Proyiso in its provisions. Frol
acarelul attention. to this movement, trol
its Inception to its consummaton, al
convinced thatit is a scheme to avoid tn
responsibility OF openly meeting tie que;
tion, by the direct passage Of the Whine
Proyiso by Congress. In my judglnen
this scheme is more abhorrent to tn
South than an open and direct edoptio
OF the Wilmot Proviso, for to fraud an
injustice it adds the crimes Of hypocriS
and deceit 1t was doubtless believe
that the slave States stood committed
the proposition, that "the people of tel
iitory in the formation OF constitutio
and state government, have the rigll
under the general principles Of the COZ
stitution, to determine their own dome
tic policy ana it was supposed, that
the people Of California should hold
convention and adopt constitution, eve
;f;t .bouI1 ,ont,in ~, NIiI,D+ D.O,-;. -,