Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-15

themselves forbidden to resort to any other
house Of worship than the one which is estab-
lished by municipal law, such provision
would be alike repugnant to common justice,
to common sense, to universal practice, adj
hitting of no exception.
To what extent should municipal laws pre-
vail in an acquired territory and how far, and to
what extent have the citizens Of conquering
or acquiring country rights in the acquired
territory? We can give limits, than which the
most charitable and most liberal can wish
none better. We allow the municipal laws to
preserve peace and order, and give protection to
persons and property Of the inhabitants. We
allow to the citizens of the conquering country
every right Of person and property consistent
with the rights Of the inhabitants as above
stated. Who can adduce from history more
liberal terms to conquered or acquired
country?
Giving this extreme extent Of power to the
municipal laws Of any Territory it will mo-
where exclude slavery.
Suppose in the acquired Territory there
should be Mormon municipal law, requiring
every child to go to Mormon school, and
there be educated in its peculiar tenets, and
requiring parents to go to Mormon church.
If it be conceded that the Constitution would
not permit this, no less emphatically does it
recognise slavery. 's'
If slavery be such moral guilt as to induce
such jealous warfare, that no right, however
fortified by all the muniments Of title, shall
protect slavery, what shall we say Of the plant
conscience of those same parties, who have
given life and strength to polygamy, who have
blazoned its justification to the world, who
have endowed with the panoply Of the Union
this polygamy? Why so stern to the unthrifty,
improbable slavery? Why SO kind and gene
rous to polygamy? Is it because we
compound for sins we are inclined to,
BY damning those we have no mind to-"
Most assuredly he should not object to the
equality Of shareholders with other citizens in
a new Territory who could organize a Terri
tory formally acknowledging polygamy, Civ
ing this creed full power to legislate over a
great Territory, holding out Mecca to all the
members of the same creed, who, loathed
throughout Christendom, shall there find an
asylum, places Of honor and trust and an
equality in every respect with the purest. All
this is pure, and just, and good to the con-
science which abhors slavery.
Suppose peaceable dissolution Of the Union.
Would it not carry with it division of the
Territories among the States pro rata to federal
population? The proceeds Of the public lands
haze been THUS distributed, Why not thus
distribute the land itself? Would it not be
equally legal just, and proper? Why not do
it, and let the States severaly give bonds to the
national government, if necessary, to supply
their respective quotas VIII enever needed !?
In that case southern jurisdiction would extend
over their several quotas ofterritory and that of
the north over the quotas of northern States.
Thus would the sensitive conscience ofthe north
be free from responsibility, and do justice. But
in the present mode the fanatical conscience
is not satisfied unless it strip the south OF
every portion Of its birthright "a sagacious
conscience that Of northern fanaticism seem
ing like the rose, but being the serpent be
meath it." a- ~
By division of territory, the southern States
could either combine their acquisitions, int
new States, or hold them as territory, as
might be preferable. Thus, by every mode
except metaphysical argument and q sin
gle-sin conscience, the south would get its
rights-by dissolution of the Union, by a
sale of the public lands and distribution, and
by division of the lands without dissolu-
ton. These sensitive consciences have great
scruples OF any seeming spoliation of Indians,
Mexicans, Cubans, or indeed of any other per
sons in the world, save and except only their
southern brethren. These are game, their game,
fair game; to hunt and spoil them is an act alike
balny to the conscience as profitable to the
pocket.
Against the foregoing general reasons sane
tioning the introduction Of slavery into national
territories, there are some qualifications. The
NOrtnWeSt Territory WAS sPeciaiy eAe"Ptcu,
yet Indiana petitioned Congress to allow its in
PRODUCTION. 1t was refused, not upon the ground
that Congress had not the right to authorized,
but that it was inexpedient for the welfare of
the territory. If, then, Congress had the right
to introduceitintoa territory specially exempted,
is not the inference that where not specially
it is of course allowed2 Would not
an Interpretation prohibiting the introduction
Of slavery into the territories be tantamount
to saying that all acquisitions of territory
shall inure to the exclusive benefit Of the
north?
supreme Court of the United States,