Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1850-02-23

toh 10 iSCOSliScu uiiU SdnCuOncU Dy the
laws of their respective States, and by
the Constitution of the country. The
people there hold certain spec..es of
property, and that property Is secured to
them by the laws of their States and the
Constitution of the country. 1t is pro-
posed in Congress to exclude them and
their property, because they are slave
holders, and their property slaves, from
an equal participation in your Territories,
acquired by the common blood and treas
ure OF the Union. They ask you to
pause. That Territory is, and ought to
be, as much open to them and their pro-
perty as it is to you, They ask you to
pass no laws to exclude them from what
they have an equal right with youto en-
joy. They ask you to let those Terrific
ries remain open as well as to the slave
holder as the non-slaveholder, and sub
init their rights to hold their property
there 20 the arbitrament of the constitu-
tional arbiter. They ask that you do not
legislate on the subject at all.
He was told that if Congress did not
les Ate on the subject, and the Supreme
Court decided that such legislation was
unconstitutional, that it was null and
void. This was true. But by logisla-
ting on the subject, you throw cloud
over the rights of the stakeholder, and
prevent his emigrating in the mean
while the subject was under considera-
ton, and before decision in your legis.
lation could be had, the territories were
filed by population from the free States,
and then the STAKEHOLDER would be cx-
cluded by laws. The result of this would
be. as they were told by the Senator
from Kentucky. that slavery was exclu-
ded in California, but it was the act of the
people, and no one was to blame for it.
Was this fair, was it in good faith, was
it manly, for the North, by her numeri-
cal strength, thus to virtually exclude the
whole South from the Territories? The
Union was not formed together by the
parchment on which tie Constitution was
written. but by the hearts of the people,
and their devotion and love for that Con
stitution.
Was it not, then, endangering the I'm
ION thus to abuse your power to the iniu-
ry of the constitutional rights?
The Constitution asserts that equal
rights shall be acquired to all the people
of the Union. The States are recognised
as sovereign powers, and as such are all
on an equality. And the provisions of
that Constitution are to be exercised with
equal benefit and protection to the people
ofail the States. This latter was an ell
ementary principle on which that Consti-
tuition was based. And an implied power
under that Constitution cannot exist which
tends to the destruction of the elementary
principle.
1t is said that where the power to pro-
hibit exists, the power TO exclude is also.
that they are corelative powers. This
is based on the assumption that also as
sumes for Congress that which, if admit
ted, is an unlimited power. The powers
of Congress were limited. Congress has
no power to establish religion, to sup
press the freedom of the press, nor to
establish in the Territories the system of
peonage which exists in Mexico.
The South maintains that Congress
has no right to legislate at all. You give
! UP tiaC ConSreSS HAS the power 10 eStab-
lish slavery, as we'll as prohibit. 1he
South asks you to protect her interest,
the North that slavery may ne p ohibited.
Here, then, was the equivalent which the
Senator from Kentucky is in search Of
for his compromise.
The South demands and asserts her
right of constitutional protection for her
citizens and their property---the North
,efuscs to grant it. The North asks for
legislation for the exclusion Of slavery
from the Territories, and consequently,
of shareholders. Here, then, is the ground
for true compromise. Let the North
withdraw her demand for legislation ex-
cluding the South, and the South with
draw her demand for protection. Let
the Territories stand untouched by iegis-
Iative action, and leave the question of
slavery or no slavery then to the final ar
bitrament Of the constitutional expoua-
ders.
A great errorin this whole proceeding
was this opposition to the extension of
siayery-that, by allowing shareholders
to carry their property to the Territories
slavery was extended. Itwas not a pro-