The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-06-06

as the Shareholders ana their allles refuse W
meet them thus, they and they alone stand forth
as the opponents of all safe, wise and necessary
legislation.
THE CONSTITUTION AND TIE TERRITORIES.
During the debates in Congress on the Terri
toral Question, it has been frequently assumed
first, that the Federal Constitution regards and
treats slaves as property secondly, that as the
supreme law of the land, it extends over not only
the States, but the Territories, by its own inhe-
rent force abrogating in the latter whatever con-
>'a-4---4L - -and JbArefore abrogating the laws
IN S>Ae 's.,.y~>~s =" - ....-.
ing slavery.
We have so often controyerted the first sssump-
ton, that we shall not spend much effort on it
now Only two operative provisions of the Con-
sttution refer to Slavery and they both regard
the slave not property, but as person. sustain
ing peculiar relations. The one, regulating rep
resentstion, rates the slave as three-ffths of
person, simply defining his weight in the political
scale and it can no more be inferred from this
that the Constitution establishes or recognises
Slavery in the Territories than that 1t establishes
or recognises it in the non-slaveholding States.
The second provision relates to the capture OF
fugitive persons held to service labor under the
laws of State whether they be persons bound
to service for term of years or for life; and 1T
simply prohibits any other State from passing
laws releasing them from such service or labor.
II no more recognises and treats the slave as
property than it does the apprentice.
With this brief denial of the first assumption,
sSA9pss to ths cut.sidss Htisa-4f tia s4eeadtkst.
as the supreme law of the land, the Constitution
extends over the Territories, and abrogates what
ever local laws or usages conflict with it. lncln-
ing to the general truth Of this we would state
the proposition as follows: The Federal Consti-
tuition as the supreme law Of the land, extends
over the Territories, far as il is applicable and
abrogates whatever laws are repugnant to the
rights it secures, to the duties it enjons. The
statement, in general terms, that the Constitution.
extends over the Territories is too vague to afford
ground for clear argument. That it extends
over them so far as applicable, is proposition
easily understood, and sufficiently definite to fur
nish data for reaching some practical conclusion
All those provisions relating to the election and
qualification of representatives, the choice of
President, and restrictions upon the States, have
no possible application to the Territories But
other provisions are general. The section which
defines treason, and declares the power Of Con-
gress to punish it, defines it and determines the
mode of its punishment, We suppose for the Ter
rtories as we'll as the States. The trial by jury
of all crimes, except in cases Of impeachment, is
secured, in general terms; and under this proyi.
sion, we understand, that person charged with
crime in the Territories as well as the Sates, may
claim such trial. But where it is declared
that the Senate Of the United States shall be
composed of two Senator's from each &ate,n &C.,
we know that this privilege of elccting Senators
is restricted to the States and the provision is not
annlicahle to the Territories. In this way we NAV
go through the Constitutlon, nnding its provi
sions for the most part operative upon States
alone, while some provisions apply rs we'll to
Territories. Nearly all of the amendments of
! the Constitution being restrictions on the exer-
else of power by Congress- and guarantees of i'm
portant personal rights, operate, we presume,
equally in States and Territories.
If what we have said be true, it follows that
the Federal Constitution being the supreme law
of the land, far it is applicable by its terms
or spirit to the Territories, abrogates whatever
local laws are repugnant to it, If there were
Mexican laws in California and New Mexico be-
fore their acquisition by this country, authorizing
unusual or cruel punishments," or the taking of
"private property for public use without compen-
sation" or trial for ga capital or otherwise infa-
nous crime" without "presentment or indict-
ment by grand jury" on the contamination of
annexation those laws were annulled by the in
ton, which declares that "no person shall be
held to answer for capital or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on presentment Of grand jury
"nor shall private property be taken for public
use without just compensation" nor cruel and
unusual punishments be inflicted
But, it will not be contended that local laws,
not repugnant to the rights secured or duties en-
joined by the Federal Constitution, the Supreme
Law, are abrogated. They continue to exist I'M
til repealed by the competent authority. The
question arises, is the lea loci prohibiting slavery,
or the holding of human beings as property, in
conflict with any right secured or duty imposed
by the Constitution 1t is easy to declaim, to
deal in vague generalities on this subject But,
let the question be answered definitely let the
provision Of the Constitution in relation to sla-
very, violated by this local law of the Territories,
be pointed out. Mr.. Toombs, member from
Georgia. quoted four constitutional provisions, as
furnishing what he styled especial guarantees I"
of slavery, as follows;
"lst. An exception of the African slave trade
from the general power of Congress over COM
merce for twenty years.
"2d. Representation for slaves in this branch of
Congress
"3d. The right to demand the delivery up of
fugitiycs from labor escaping TO the non-slayc-
holding coufcdcrates.
&c th. The obligation Of the General Govern
| ment to suppress insurrectiOns"
The first and fourth provisions can in no sense
whatsoever be termed "guarantics of slavery y
the first merely delaying for twenty years the ex-
ercise of an anti-slavery power--a power which
had previously existed in the States alone, but
was now for the first time conferred on Con-
gress-thc power to prohibit the foreign slave
trade: the second, having no special relation to
servile insurrection, but authorizing Congress,
on application Of the Legislature or Executive of
any State, to preserve its Government against
being overthrow by "domestic violenccn
But admit, for the sake of argument, that every
one of these provisions was intended to be spe-
cial guaranty of slayery--a mopstrous assumr-