Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-03-11

denied or prohibited by the constitution itself II has
been exercised from the first existence Of the Government
and has been recognised by the three departmentsthe
Executive the Legislative and the Judicial Precedents
Of every kind thick il it's support Indeed the very
bill now before assumes control OF the territory
clearly inconsistent with those principles Of sovereignty
which are said to be violated by Congressional prohib
ton of slavery
Here are provisions determining the main features in
the Governmenthe distribution of powers In the Exc
cutve the Legislative and Judicial departments and the
manner in which they shall be respectively constituted
securing the President with the consent OF the Senate
the appointment Of the Governor the Secretary and the
Judges and to the people the election of the
ordaning the qualifications of voters the salaries OF the
public officers and the daily compensation Of the mem
bers Of the Legislature Surely If Congress may estao
sh these provisions without any interference with the
rights of territorial sovereignty is absurd to say that
1t may not also prohibit slavery.
But there is in the very bill express prohibition on
the Territory borrowed from the ordinance Of l1s and
repeated in every act organizing Territory or even
new State down to the present me wherein it IS ex-
pressy declared that tax shall be imposed upon the
property of the United States" Now, here is clear
and unquestonable restraint upon the sovereignty OF
Territories and States. The public lands OF the United
States situated within organized Territory or state
be regarded the Instruments and means necessary
and proper the sovereign powers ofthe
like Notifications, arsenals, and navy yards are
strictly in the nature of private property OF the naton
and such unless exempted by the foregoing prohib
ton, would clearly be within the field OF local taxauon
liable like the lands of other proprietors to all customary
burdens and Incidents. Mr.. Justice Woodbury. has de-
clared, in well-considered judgment, that
Where the United States land situated within the
m Of particular States and which they have no ees
sion Of Jurisdiction for objects either special general little
doubt exists that the rights and remedies IN 70 y
usually the apply TO other landhodsr WITHIN the
States"-Uised States ps.1 Woodbury. and Mnos, p 70.
assume, then, that without this prohibition these
lands would be liable to taxation Does any one question
this? Nobody The conclusion then, follows that by
this prohibition you propose deprive the present Terri
tory as you have deprived other Territoriesay and
States-of an essential portion Of its sovereignty
And these, sir, are not vain words. The Supreme
Court Of the United States have given great
to the sovereign right of taxation in the States In the
Of Providence Bank Pittman Peters, 5l4 they
declare:
That the taxing power is Of vital Importance; that
essential tbs Governments that the relnqush-
ment Of such power is never to be assumed"
And again, in the of Dobbins Commissioners Of
Erie county, 16 Peters, AT, they say:
Taxation is sacred right essential to the eeace Of Go
with the incident to attach i upon all persons
and property witha the jurisdiction Of the State"
Now, call upon Senators to remark that this sacred
right said to be essential to the very existence of Govern
ment, is abridgedin the bill now before
For myself do not doubt the power Of Congress to
fasten this restriction upon the Territory and afterwards
upon the State has been always done; but am at
loss what grounds this be placed which will
not also support the prohibition of slavery The former
is unquestioned infringement Of sovereignty as de-
cared BY Supreme Court far more than be assert
ed of the latter
am unwilling to admit sir that the prohibition of
slavery in the Territories is in any just sense, an in
frngement of the local sovereignty Slavery is an in
fraction Of the immutable law of nature and such,
cannot be considered natural incident to any sovereign
ty especially in country which has soemnly declared
in Its Declaration of Independence the naenabe right
of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
In age of civilization and in land of rights slavery
may still be tolerated in fact but its prohibition, within
municipal Jurisdiction by the Government thereof,
by of the States of the Union cannot be considered
infraction of natural rights its prohibition by
Congress in the Territories be regarded as an infringe
ment of the local sovereignty founded it must be-
natural rights.
But another argument pressed most faacous in its
character 1t is asserted that inasmuch the Terrific
res acquired by the treasure they the
common property of the whole Union aud therefore
citizen can be prevented from moving into them with his
slaves without infringement Of the equal rights and
privileges which belong to him citizen Of the United
States it is admitted that the people of this very
Territory when organized State may exclude slaves
and in this way abrdge asserted right founded on
the common property In the Territory Now, II this can
be done by the few thousand settlers who constitute the
State government the whole argument founded the
acquisition Of the Territories by treasure
futile and evanescent &f &#a #s
But this argument proceeds on assumption which
cannot stand. 1t assumes that slavery is national in
stution and that property in slaves recognised by the
Constitution Of the United States Nothing be more
false. By the judgment of the Supreme Court of the
United States and also by the principles of the common
rives its support exclusively from local municipal laws
and beyond the sphere of these laws it to exist
except far be preserved by the clause for the
rendition of fugtiyes from labor Madison thought it
wrong to admit into the Constitution the idea that there
can be property in and rejoice to believe that
no such idea can be found there The Constitution re-
CARDS slaves always as persons" with the rights of
persons" never property. When it is said, there
fore, that every citizen may enter the national domain
with his property it does follow by any rule Of logic
of law that he may carry his slaves On the contrary
he only carry that property which Is admitted to be
such by the universal law Of nature written by Gods
own finger on the heart Of man.
Again The relation of master and slave is sometimes
classed with the domestic relations. Now while is
questionaby among the powers of any State within its
own Jurisdiction to change the existing relation of hus
band and wife and to establish polygamy presume no
person would contend that apolygamous husband, resi-
dent in of the States would be entitled to the
national Territory with his hare-hs property if you
pease-and there claim immunity Clearly when he
passes the bounds of that local Jurisdiction which
tons poygamy, the peculiar domestic relation would
cease; and it is precisely the same with slavery.
Sir, dismiss these considerations. The prohibition
Of slavery in the Territory Of Nebraska stands foun
dations Of adamant upheld by the early policy Of the
fathers by constant precedent and time honored COM
remove the sacred landmark, and open the whole vast
domain to slavery To you is committed this high pre-
rogative Our fathers the of the Revolution set
forth in burning words among their grievances that
George III lin order to keep open market where men
should be bought and sold had prosuted his negative
restrain this execrable commerce Sir like the English
monarch, you may now prostitute your power to this
same purpose but you cannot escape the judgment Of
the world nor the doom Of history.
1t will be in vain that while doing this thing, you
plead, in apology, the principle Of scgournnent which
-. - IT.