The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-06-28

slitution, therefore, not only recognized, but
and enforced, and not only guaran-
tied and enforced, but enlarged the rights of the
master. The rights Of the master, therefore, are
co-extensive in space with the Constitution.
This recognition, guaranty, and enlargement,
does not apply solely 20 the slave States, but 70
every part or the United States. ANY State may
establish slavery; and If Massachusetts, should
think proper to do SO tomorrow, her citizens
would become entitled to all the guarantees of the
Constitution in relation to slaves; and slave es-
Gaping from her jurisdictions into Vermont would
have 70 be delivered up. The Constitution would
stand ready 70 restore the property TO its owner,
and to take from the slave his usurped liberty;
slavery, therefore, is national and exists by recog
milton and guaranty everywhere. The institution
is legally possible in every region covered by the
Constitution. II the States should all abolish
slavery to-day, and a hundred years hence restore
IL, the Constitution would be found ready to guar
anty and sustain il.
! shall hardly be required to prove what your
courts have uniformly decided; that the obligation
imposed ON local authorities TO deliver up fugitive
slaves, rests upon the Federal Government, wher-
ever il has local jurisdiction; that is, IN the Dstrct
Of Columbia, territories, and on board Of ships al
sea. Surely II will not be pretended that Congress
is not bound to do what it is bound TO require
every one else to do. To say SO would be just.hs
absurd as to suppose that the Supreme Being, in
enjoining right and justice upon the moral crea-l
lures of the universe, reserved to himself the pri
vilege and monopoly Of doing wrong.
These guarantees not for the benefit of States,
as such, but private Observation-Disclosures. The
State is not the owner Of slaves, it is the citizen
that owns them; and he does not own them offici-
ally, or in public capacity, but in his private n-
dividual capacity. The relation between master
and slave is not public, but a private, personal
relation; and this private right Of the citizen the
Constitution guarantees. And this brings me TO-.
another mart If NV arOllnpnt.
ALI the guarantees of the Constitution in favor Of
persons absolute, and exist wherever the Con-
stitution is the supreme law Of the land. The
guarantees to persons have no reference to the
federal idea. Trial by jury. compulsory process
to compel attendance of witnesses, exemption OF
properly from seizure for public uses, except for
compensation, are immunities, not Of States but
citizens, and they apply not only to citizens but to
aliens. Chinese who had first touched our soil
but yesterday, would be entitled to these privileges
and if the Constitution be the Constitution of the ter
ritories as none will deny, he would be entitled TO
themn the territories The gentleman from Indiana,
Mr.. PETrIr,) asked my colleague, (Mr. RHETT,y
whether citizen Of South Carolina emigrating to
a territory remained still a citizen Of South Caro-
lima, and retained his immunities as such. It was
nugatory question; for, before said, citizen
ship is not necessary to entle one to the privileges
in question. If a Turk should land on our shores
tomorrow, he would be entitled to purchase a.
slave, and purchasing him, he would be at once enti
tied to all the guarantees Of the Constitution. Yes,
sir, convict, transported hither for his crimes,
fresh from a British penitentiary, could ENJOY
the guarantees of the Constitution in South Caro-
lima, that gentlemen would refuse to the soldiers OF
the Palmetto regiment, IN the country they have
helped to conquer. The nature and extent OF
the guarantees in question may be made perfectly
plain.
Suppose that instead Of sovereign States, the
Union consisted of dependent provinces, as some
desired it should do; and suppose all the guaran-
ties have enumerated remained the same they
now are, as the friends Of q consolidated govern
ment intended they should do; for no one desired
that the citizen should be deprived Of his rights
and immunities, though the States were deprived
Of their sovereignty Is it not plain that no au'
thority could abrogate them, except an authority
competent TO alter or amend the Constitution
! To wit: convention Of the whole Union! Now,
what is the difference between the powers of this
this Government within the States, and within the
territorial districsi Within the States it is fed
erative limited governments In the territory II Is q
consolidated government and will so continue until
the districts become States. citizen in district
bears the same relation to this Government, thai
the citizens Of the States would all have borne had
the States been reduced to dependencies. In q
State the mmunties Of the citizens subject to
two forms Of conventions: convention OF the
State, and conventions Of all the States acting by
specific majority Of three-fourths. In district
which has no sovereignty, the citizen is subjec
only to the national form of convention. There is
therefore no authority competent to abrogate tht
private rights Of persons in district, except con
4 ventiOns in the last mentioned form.
1t would seem, from what / have Just said, tina
| the co-equality Of the States is not necessary Il
my argument; as State rights are not involved in
| the question. Nor does the argument appear to
depend upon the equal ownership of the people
Of the Union in the public domain. The true
foundation appears to be the equality and univer-
| salty Of civil rights and immunities under the
Constitution Of the United States, and the equal
and uniform action Of that instrument upon all
the peopleof the Union. Inregard to all personal
guarantees, the Constitution Of the United States
| acts upon the people Of the Union as one mass,
and the claim of the citizens to these immunities
are directly upon the United States, and ire
spective and Independent Of State sovereignty.
Having shown what are the rights Of all free
| inhabitants and citizens of the United States in
the territories the question arises, what action is
| it the duty of this Government to take on the
subject in organizing territorial governmental
Sir, this question is briefly answered. The
action Of the Congress the subject at its first ses
sion, and afterwards, under the Constitution, is
conclusive.
At the very first session Of Congress under the
present Constitution, in the fourth month Of the
session, a territorial government for the district
south Of the Ohio river was provided. In the
charter, there was an injunction laid upon the
local legislature to make no law interfering with
the rights Of erngrants to take their slaves to the
territory. This right had been violated by the
ordinance of 1857, and the Congress deemed it its
duty to prohibit the like for the future, and to
the faithful execution of the Constitution by its
| subordinate government.
The next year charter Of government was pro-
vided for the district Of Tennessee, and clause
was inserted prohibiting the district Legislature
from enacting any law "tending to the emancipa-
ton of slaves
Some years afterwards government was pro-
vided for the district of Mississippi, with simi-
lar clause.
The Constitution had denied the power Of inter
ference to Congress, and Congress- therefore felt il
to be its duty to extend its prohibition to its
ture government for whose conduct it ought to be
held responsible. Thus was the first compromise,
which was upon the line Of the Ohio river, carried
out in good faith by this Government.
But in process of time new territory was ac-
quired west Of the Mississippi, and the North
demanded thata new compromise should be made
upon a line far south Of the first The South
WAS oyerborne by a majority or rather soId Nv