The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1854-08-23
VOLUME 2l, NO. Is.


each State were left entirely free to choose
tutions they would have, and so soon ant
so long as each State should thus determine
il became the duty of the federal govern.
ment, under the constitution, to protect such
| institutions in the several States as they
should be found to exist: for instance, Penn.
sylvania was slaveholding State at the
time of the adoption of the constitution, and
remained SO more than quarter of cen
tury before the institution closed under the
decree of her own people. So long as
Pennsylvania continued to legalize slavery
by her own laws and constitution, the con-
stitution of the United States recognized and
protected the institution of slavery within
her limits, as solemnly and imperatively as il
now recognizes and protects the prohibition
which Pennsylvania has imposed on slavery
within her own limits. The same remark is
applicable to New Jersey, New York, Con.
necticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire.
Each of those States recognized ana pro.
tected slavery within their limits at the time
and !or long period subsequent to the
adoption Of the federal constitution; and
each of them has since abolished and pro.
hibjted slavery without the consent or inter
ference of Congress. No man denied the
right of each of these States, under the
constitution, to retain the institution of sla
very 50 long as they choose to do so; no man
denied the right to abolish il at the time it
was abolished in each by voluntary action
of their own people; and presume that no
man will now deny the right of each Of
these States to introduce slavery, pro.
vide1 their own people should deem it
just and wise to Go so by the modification OF
their local constitution and laws. 1t being
conceded, then, that the original States, one
and all, have the undoubted right, under
the constitution, to introduce or exclude sla-
very at pleasure, with what reason can il
be contended that different rule NAV OF
should be applied to the new States? Il
hardly requires an argument TO prove that
each State of this Union must be equal in
respect to its rights and powers to every
other State. The States are sovereign and
independent in all things except where the
constitution Of the United States has i'm
posed limitations. Those limitations apply
alike to all the States of the Union, new anl
old, slaveholling and on-slaveholding. NJ
other limitation upon the sovereignty of Z
State can be imposed than those contained
in the cons'ituton-none can be imposed
by act OF Congress-none by any branch o
the federal goyernment-noneb by any earth
ly power except the constitution of the Uni
tel States. Entire and perfect equality
therefore, among all the States of the Union
in respect to the rights of Legislation aud
sovereignty is Il cardinal and Fundamental
principle in our republican system. Indeed
the moment you impose upon the rights O
any one State Il mitation which the consti
tutlon has not enjoined upon all the States
such S,ate ceases to be STATE, witltia ht
noe ning Of the co $titeti0n Such limitation
produces lnteriorty where the constitution
mas provided for perfect equality. Unde,
the clause OF the constitution providing fo,
The admission Of "new States" as gen.
erAl thing, Congress is invested with dis
cretou TO admit OF reject; but in the event
d nCw Safe is admitted into the Union, il
must come in as State, with all the pow.
ers and rights Of a State under the constitu-
ton, IN on al equal footing with the origi
nal o-ates III all respects whatsoever. There,
fore, whatever powers are possessed by any
one S.ate-old or new--in respect to slavery,
may OF right, under the constitution, be ex-
ercised by each aad every State. In pur-
suance of this sovereig IN right, which is com
mon to all the States, sixteen of the States
Of the Union have abolished or prohibited
slavery, while the other fifteen States have
recognized and projected it within their lin.
its. rhls great principle was distinctly re.
cognized and solemnly guaranteed in the
compromise measures of 1852 Applause
The acts of the organization of the Ter
ritorics Of New Mexico and Utah-eacE
contains the stipulation that whe said ''Ter
! rltories, CT any part thereof, shall be admit
ted into the Union as States, they shall be
received with or without slavery, as theil
constitution shall prescribe at the time O
admission" The Nebraska blk which has
passed Congress at this session, also carries
out the same principle in the precise Ian
gulge OF the compromise measures of 1850
which have just quoted. Great applause.
In 1920 Congress passed an act to au
thorize the people of Missouri Territory tc
form constitution preparatory to their ad
mission into the Union rs State on an equa
footing with the original States in all re
spects whatsoever. The 9th section of th,
scG declared that slavery should be foreve
prohibited in all the territory acquire from
France, north of 3G deg. 80 mn., and no
embraced within the limits of the proposed
State of Missouri. This prohibition neve
went into practical operation for the reason
that the country was filled with hastile say
ges, and set apart by law and treaty as al
Indian territory, from which all white mel
were excluded by severe penalties. Henc
the 9Th section of tie Missouri act, whicI
relates to slavery. has remained dead let
ter on the statute book for thirty four years
having no civilized peope for it to operat
upon, ard its application to the Indians be
my necessarily included by acts OF Congress
known as the Indian intercourse laws. o.
the introduction Of the Nebraska bill, there
fore, question arose whether legal efec
should now be given for the first time to thi
old rrobIbtlon---in other words whethe
Congress shorld, as the result of its action
now apply the Wilmot proviso to Nebrask
and Kansas! 10 have given legal effect t.
this old prohibition would have involved
total abandonment of the cardinal principle
OF the compromise measures of 1850, s
far as they related to the organization Of ne,
Territories. These measures rested upol