The daily union., 1854-03-04

These things prepare comprehend the true char
acer q ihs change wih regard 70 tns asr,tonss II
unanimously dedicated TO frsedom without opposition
criticism The inteTdict OF slavery then covered every
inch OF soil belonging the national government Louis
iana an immense region beyond the bounds OF ,hs org
ual States, subsequently, acquired and ~ 1890 alter
vehement struggle which shook the whole land. DIS
comfled freedom compelled BY dividing line, 10 q
partition with slavery This arrangement, which 10 It's
very terms exclusively applicable TO particular ter
rtory purchased from France. has been accepted as hna
down to the present session OF Congress; but now, sir
here in 1854 freedom is suddenly summoned 70 surreade
even her hard-w moiety. Here are the three stages;
only half while al the third ali il d he opened to slave
ry Thus Is the original policy OF the government abso-
luely reversed Slavery, which at The beginning was
sectional institution, with no foothod anywhere on The
national territory. is exalted as national nstu.
lion, and all broad domain is threatened byin blight
Thus much for wha, have 10 say at this time OF the
original policy consecraed by tue lives, opinions and
acts OF our fathers Summoning my side the majestic
was only squalled BY hc nness d Washington il var,
might leave the cause In their care But certain rsa-
adduced for the proposed departure from their
great example, and though these seem of little validity,
| yet would not pass them in silence. .4
The prohibition OF slaverv in the Territories Is assacd,
as beyond the power OF Congress. and an infringement
Of the local sovereignty On this account is a. this
late day, pronounced unconstitutional Now. without
considering miDuely the sources from which the power
| OF Congress over the national domain is derived
whether from The express grant in The constitution 10
make rules and regulations for the government OF the
Territory or from the power necessarily implied 70 gov
ern territory acquired BY conquest or purchase seems
TO impossible 10 deny its existence, without invall-
dating large portion Of the legislation OF the country,
from the adoption Of the constitution down 70 the present
day. This power asserted before the constitution.
Il not denied prohibited by the constitution ITSELF
has been exercised from the first existence OF the gov
eminent, and has been recognised by the three depart
menls--lhe executive the legislative and the judicial
Precedents OF every kind thick in its support In
deed, the very bill now before us assumes control OF
the territory clearly inconsistent with those principles OF
sovereignty which said 10 be violated BY congress
sonal prohibition OF slavery.
Here provisions determining the main features In the
distribution OF powers in the executive,
the legislative, and judicial departments, and the manner
in which they shall be respectively constitled-securng
10 the Presidents with the consent OF the Senate the ap
ponment of the governor the secretary and the judges,
and to the people the election OF the egsatureordain-
ing the qualifications Of voters the salaries of the public
the Legislature Surely If Congress may establish these
provisions, without any interference with the rights OF
territorial sovereignty is absurd to say that i may not
But there is in the very bill an express prohibition on
the Territory, borrowed from the ordinance OF 1857. and
repeated in every act organizing Territory, OF even
pessy declared that no tax shall be imposed upon the
property OF the United States" Now, here is clear
rores and States The public lands Of the United States.
situated within organized Territory State, cannot
be regarded as the lnsrunsn and means necessary and
proper 10 execute The sovereign powers Of the nation.
like forticaions arsenals, and navy yards They are
strictly The of p,iuate property OF the nation, and
ss ss wRa p . s 4s .ss
dens and incidents Mr. Justice Woodbury. has declared.
in wel-consdered Judgment that
.Where the United States land situated within tho
limits of particular States, and over which they have no
cesn OF arirdcton for objects either special general
hide donb exists that the rights and remedies In relation
within The Substituted States vs. Woodbury. and
Minoi, p 76.
| | assume, then, that without this prohibition these
lands would be liable taxation. Does any ques
ton this Nobody. The conclusion then follows. that
Terriory, as you have deprived ether Terrtoriss-ay
and S,aesoi essential portion OF lis sovereignty.
And these. sir, are no, vain words. The Supreme
Court of the United States have given great prominence
TO the sovereign right OF taxation in the States ln the
OF Providence Bank Pman, Peters, 5i4, they
declare
"That the taxing power L. Of vital Importance; that
quishment OF such powe is never 20 be assumed.
And again, in the OF Dobbns va Commissioners
OF Enc County, lo Peters. 447, they say:
Taxation is sacred right essential the existence of
govetnmcn-an Incident OF sovereignty; Tho right Of
legislation is coexensve with tho incident, aach IL
ss poe AZ persons ana properly ~'''" 'A' o. tho
Now, call upoA senators remark that this sacred
right, saJ to be essential 10 the very existence OF govern
ment, Is abridged in the bill before
For myself, do not doubt The power Of Congress 10
asen this restriction upon The Territory, and afterwards
upon The State, has been always done; but am al
will not also support the prohibnon OF slavery The
former unquestonable infringement OF sovereignty.
declared by Supreme Court, far than be
asserted OF the latter.
am unwilling 10 admit sir, that the prohibition OF
slavery in the Territories is, in any just sense, in
frngement OF the local sovereignty Slavery il in
fraction OF the mmutahle law OF Nature, and, such,
cannot be considered natural incident TO any sover-
eighty, especially in country which has solemnly de-
claed, its Declaration OF Independence, the inaisna
Bile right OF all TO life, liberty and the pursuit oil hap
piness In age OF civilization and in land of rights.
slavery may sul be tolerated in fact but its prohibition
within municipal junsilcon by the government there
of as by Of the States Of the Uaon cannot be con-
sidered inracon OF natural rights can its proh
blIon by Congress in the Territories be regarded a. an
infringement OF the local sovereignty founded, ~ must
be, natural rights.
But another argument pressed, most fallacous In s
character II is asserted that inssmnch the Tesrores
were acquired By the treasure they the
mon property OF the whole Union and therefore, no cit
zen can be prevented from moving into them with his
slaves without Infringement Of the equal rights and
privileges which belong to HIM as citizen oi the United
States. Bot IL is admitted that the people OF this very
and in This way abrdse asserted right founded on the
common property in The Territory Now. il this be
done BY the few thousand settlers who consu the State
government, the whole argument founded the acqus
lion OF the Terriioesb by common treasure seems futile
and evaaescent
Bat this argument proceeds assumption which
cannot stand II assumes that slavery is national in
sutop, and that property in slaves recognised by tho
constitution OF the United States Nothing can be more
faise By the Judgment OF the Supreme Court Of the
United States, and also by the principles OF the