The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-03-06


came into the hotel, cleared large space in the
public hall, set down rotary machine, and pro-
ceeded to draw lottery. Now, In Massachusetts,,
and in many of the northern States, lotteries are
prohibited under severe penalties. With US, il is
highly penal to advertise lottery in any form, to
placard at the corners OF the streets, TO
hibit any plan or emblem of one at shop window.
We act upon the we'll known truth, that there is
much less number of persons who draw any con-
siderable prize In lottery, than there are who
are killed by lightning; and, therefore, whatever
chance ticket-bolder has of drawing any consid-
cradle prize, we know that he has much greater
chance Of being killed by lightning, Now, when
go to the Territories, does the former carry
his right to establish and draw lottery, the lat
ter carry his right to prosecute the other for doing
so! Neither; certainly neither. Both have left the
local law behind them. II any State in this Union
had adopted polygamy AS its peculiar institution,
could am inhabitant of that State take dozen wives
with him into the new Territories and defend his
claim to live with them there because he could do
Suppose, in pursuance of the "manifest destiny
principle, we should ere e-annex'' part of China to
this Union, would the Chinese, removing to Cal
ifornia, carry the practice OF inantcide with them?
There cannibal islands in the South seas, where
voyagers tell il is the practice Of the Chiefs
after having condemned and executed criminal,
to dine him. If"manifest destiny" should unite
them to this country, could they bring their pecu-
liar institution of cannibalism into New Mexico!
Just as well, answer, and on precisely the same
legal ground that the South carry slavery into
New Mexico The reason is, that the law of slavery
is local law. Like lotteries, or poygamy, or in
anticide or cannibalism it can legally exist in no
land where the principles of the common law pre-
vail until it is legalized and sanctioned by special
law. II is then permitted on the simple ground that
much of the common law as secures liberty and
property, the right of habeas corpus, and freedom
Of speech to each individual has been cut out and
cast away. The Constitution proceeds upon this
doctrine when it provides for the recapture of fugi
ive slaves. Why did it not provide for the recap
ture Of fugitive horse or OK? Why did it not pro-
vide that, If horse should escape from a
slave State into free State, ii should be delivered
up, or be recoverable by legal process? Because
horses and oxen property, by the common consent
of mankind. II needed no law to make them pro-
perty. They property by the law of nations, by
the English common law, by the law of every State
m this Union ,-toliie men and toomen are not. An
escaped slave could not be recovered before the
adoption of the Constitution. The power to seize
upon escaping slaves was one of the motives for
adoptingit. These considerations demonstrate that
slaves arc not property, within the meaning OF this
word, when it Is affirmed that if the North carry
its property into the Territories, can the South.
As the Constitution, in terms, adopts the common
law, it leaves slavery nothing to stand upon but the
local laws of the States where ii 10 established rec
dom is the rule, slavery is the exception. Judge
Berrens avorite doctrine of equality would, there
fore, be destroyed If the exception should prevail
the rule. For, if slavery can be carried into
any of Territories by force of the Constitution.
it can into all Of them and, if carried into all Of
them, the exception becomes the rule, and the rule
pershes. Ay, the rule ceases to be even much as
an exception TO that which lis own exception.
Ii is wholly swallowed up and lost.
know it is said that the fact of slavery always
precedcs the law of slavery; that iaD does not go
before the institution and create it, but comes after
wards to sanction and regulate it. But this is no
more true OF slavery than of every other institution
or practice among mankind, whether right or
wrong. Homicide existed before law; the law came
I .t.- l..
innocent mans life, without law, should lose his
own by law. The law came in To regulate homi-
eide; 10 authorize the taking Of human life fol
crime, Just as We authorize involuntary servituds
for crime; and il may just as well be argued tina
murder is natural right because it existed before
| law, as that slavery is natural right because i
existed before law. This argument appeals 10 h.
crime tchch The a,c enacted 10 prepenf, in orde
10 establish the supremacy Of ht crime oo9 the Tau
that forbids IT,
There is another fallacy in the arguments which
southern gentlemen use this subject, which
though not as transparent as the preceding, quite
as unsound They speak of the rights OF the slave
holder in the new Territories. They speak a
though the collective ownership Of the Territories
by the Government were the ownership OF the peo-
pie in scveralty; as though each citizen could g.
there and draw line round "pacer" and say
this is mine; and then because IL Is has introduce his
slaves upon it. But nothing is more clear than
that there is such individual right. The right
OF the Government Is, first, right OF sovereignty
and Jurisdiction; and second, the right of owner.
ship Of all lands, navigabc waters, &c, which
have not been conveyed away by the pre-existinG
government. Individuals retain their citizenshiI
going there, they do going 10 Great Britain
or France; But slave has just as much right TO q
portion Of the public lands in California, when ht
| gets there as his master.
Again; If the master carries into California the
legal right 10 hold slaves, which he possessed a
home docs not the slave also retain his legal rights
| when he IL transferred there. The laws which
re Wnerf
they exist In some States manumission IL com
paratycly unobstructed. In Delaware, II is a pena
offence even To sell slave 10 notorious slave
dealer. In Georgia the law forbids, lately for
bade the importation Of slaves for sale. Now, how
can Georgian import slaves into California from
Georgia, when the very laws Of his own State, un
der which he claims 20 hold slaves, and under
which laws he claims 10 carry slaves with him
forbid their Importation
And further, political franchises privileges ar,
Just much part Of a mans rights as any tangi.
bic commodity. In South Carolina the ownership
OF ten slaves constitutes property Qualification or
being member Of the Legislature. On removing
TO California, will the citizen OF south Carolina,
who owns ten slaves, carry an eligibility TO the
LEGISLATURE Of California with himl Nay, this po-
lical privilege in South Carolina goes further. u
is right in every owner Of ten slaves that no man
who docs not own ten slaves, Tor some legal equya-
lcnt,) shall be a member Of the Legislature. Tho
aspirant for office has legal right IN the limita
ton Of the number Of his competitors as much az IN
| any thing else. Can he carry hs 10 tpDlornla
with himi The inference IL inevitable that II the
inhabitants Of the fifteen slave states can carry
slaves into California by virtue Of the laws Of their
respective States then they must also carry all the
incidents Of slavery known to their respective codes
For, how can the incident be separated from the
principal You might therefore, have, in neigh
borhood Of fifteen families, fifteen slave codes in
operation at the same time,-a manifest absurdity.
| The conclusion then, " irresistible, that when
you come 20 the boundary line between slave
| State and free State, you come 10 the boundary
line Of slavery itself On side Of the line, down
TO the nsdir and up TO the zenith, the blackness OF
the slave code pervadcs all things; but on the other
side as high above and as deep below, s the purity
Of freedom Virginia cannot extend her laws ono
hairs breadth over the line into Pennsylvania or in
TO Ohio because their soil is beyond her Jurisdiction
SO neither Virginia nor all the fifteen slave States
combined, can extend their slave laws one hairs
breadth into the new Territories; and for the same
reason,-thc Territories beyond tfNir iurisdic-
ton.
Az TO the argument that the Constitution OF the
United States recognises slavery, and that, upon
the ccssion of new Territories. the Constitution, by
some magical and incomprchensible elasticity, en-
tends itself over them, and carries slavery INTO
them. think speak with all due respect when
say il does not come up TO the dignity Of sophsm.
Where do strict constructioniss, even lattudina-
rsn constructionsts, find any clause or phrase, OF
word, which shows that the Constitution u any
thing but compact between Sfoto Where DO
/ ebOxra n he a compact