The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-08-03

Washington City.
of slavery, and the rights of his constituents in
the territories notwhat he has asserted, but
just such as the territorial government chooses to
make them. This he will not agree to- am sure,
but will insist with me that their rights exist UNI
der the Constitution. WE'LL if these rights are
created by the Constitution, and rights apper-
tanning to our confederate relation, to what other
authority or jurisdiction can he legtimately re-
sort for their protection than the Federal Govern
ment' What sort Of constitution Of government
would that be under which rights are created
without an authority or power to enforce or pro-
tect them And il the right Of the citizen to pro-
lection of his property exists under the Constitu-
ton, and the duty to protect all rights created by
the Constitution attaches to the Federal Govern
ment, surely Congress, and not the territorial gov
eminent, is the primary depository of the power
and duty, and must be looked to first and last to
discharge the obligation.
Upon the whole, must insist that if the sena-
tor would give logical sequence and just applica-
ton his opinions to the right of the South
be protected in the territories, he should vote
with us for this amendment, and for others OF
similar bearing. a
his speech which have read, important to be
noted. The senator has all the while complained
that our claim for protection to slave property in
the Territories was incompatible with the admitted
absence of power in Congress, to Establish or
abolish slavery" The senator from Kentucky
Mr. CLAY] and the senator from Michigan Mr.
CAss] have joined him in this complaint Now
the senator has removed all occasion for answer
Speaking of the territorial legislature, he says
'lft should undertake to legisate for the prohibi
ton or exclusion of slavery, it would be mere
nullity," and that $50 the courts would bound
to pronounce !" but that ''if territorial legis-
lation, protective of slavery, should be subjected
to the test, he cannot doubt it would be held
valid" The senator, then, has recognized, in
the most direct terms, the broad distinction be-
tween the power to abolish and the duty to protect.
TRUST we shall never again be told that because
deny to Congress the power to abolish or exclude
slavery we are precluded from demanding protec-
ton for it.
. propose now to confne my further observa-
tons to the subject Of non-ntervention. 1t has
become important TO examine this doctrine with
some care for we find it constantly presented as
barrier to the reasonable legislation we ask in
behalf of an important interest Of the southern
section of the country.
What is meant by the doctrine of non-interven-
tioni Fit means what the senator and some OF
his friends understand by it,, then, indeed, it is a
misnomer, and worse,ye, it is adelusion--l had al
most said a fraud--not, Of course, imputing to the
senator any purpose of the sort. Nothing could
be more fatal to the Just rights of the South, nor
more opposite, as conceive, to sound con-
struction Of the Constitution, than this doctrine, as
construed and applied in debate by its most prom
inent advocate, Mr.. CAss,l and others Of It's
champions. #s
IT, understand them correctly, they claim, as
resulting from the rule of non-intervention, that if
we acquire territory from nation whose laws
abolish property in slaves, Congress cannot de-
clare the Dullity of such laws that if distractions
to the secure tenure and enjoyment of slave pro-
perty exist in the territories, Congress cannot re-
move them that iflegslative protection is needed
TO give assurance to private right in slaves, Con-
gress cannot give it, that if territory chooses, in
violation Of the constitutional rights of the Citizen
to abolish the property Of emgrant in his slave,
or refuses to yield to his right the same protection
which is claimed and allowed to other property,
Congress cannot interfere to correct the wrong.
In all these cases, non-interventon they say, for
bids.
Now, what does all this doctrine lead to' In
the first place, it is, to all practical intents far
our present possessions concerned, as was
well insisted this morning by a senator, the Will
mot Proviso; because the negation of the power
to protect this right and the refusal of the duty to
remove alleged or apprehended impediments, Gre
ates to say the least doubt as to the safety Of
emigrating to the territories with slaves, which,
in effect, may exclude US.
In the next place, it is non-action so far as the
security of slave property is concerned, and &C
ton against it. 1t is in very truth the active
else Of the power to exclude, while the power to
protect is negated. The senator from Michigan,
who stands before the country as the author and
chief defender of the doctrine, has declared that
he considers the Mexican anti-slave laws as re-
naming in force in the recently acquired terrific
RES II they do it is because of the transfer they
became American laws-aws of the United States
No law can have force, or even existence, which
does not represent the will Of the supreme
thority. Certainly the Mexican authority has
ceased in these territories and has been succeeded
all admit, by the authority of the United States,
which IS now the supreme authority In them.
Well, now, how can any law exist there for a
moment but by the will of the United States, as
represented in its Legislative form, by Congress?
True, Congress will not make express enactment
of them; but If they remain in force, it must be
because the supreme will assent is, for the sake
of order, presumed until otherwise declared. Still,
whether by presumed or direct assent, the laws
rest for their sanction upon the will of their
preme authorty--upon the will of Congress,
which, in this case, represents that authority.
Now, then, if the courts decide that the will Of
Congress is presumed, its will is thus employed
in the positive and practical exclusion of slave
property from the territories in other words,
Congress permits its will, by judicial decision, to
intervene for the prohibition Of slavery in the lately
acquired territories, but if required to declare that
such is not its will, the senator from Michigan
and he from Mississippi protest that the principle
of non-intervention is in the way.
But this is not yet the worst conquence of non
intervention so interpreted for in the third place,
the South upon the continent. The lately acquired
territory was from nation which prohibited
slavery. The same condition is the fact as to all
vacant territory remaining upon the continent. If
the laws of the acquired country come with the
land, and Congress cannot repeal them, or if even
a doubt of their annulment is to be allowed to
MAN, it will be in vain, so far the South is
cerned, that any future acquisitions made.
The sum Of the whole will be, that, under this
new doctrine the lines Of the are States ,oiH hare
been fired to their present limits liz this be the doc
trine of the Democratic platform, then Trojan
horse has been introduced into the citadel of the
South That is all ! shall say about it,
But non-interventon has a legitimate and rea-
sonable meaning, and, understood in its true sense
is not only without objection, but is correct prn-
ciple. 81 ~. So t5fl y bsfebsu
As rule arbitrarily applied to the right OF pro-
perty in slaves, and to no other description OF
it would involve discrimination iniu-
rious to the slave interest and degrading to the
South; but as principle growing out ofthe ma
ture OF our government--as a construction OF the
founfed i,pon he renublican idea OF