Washington sentinel., 1854-03-08

sons, dccOruinS 40 ~ may sun su0u PURPOSES
for the time being. When the rights of the
south to representation are discussed, they are
always clear that slaves are property and not
persons. At other times, they are equally sure
that they can be only considered as persons.
In either aspect Of the case, their claim that
Congress has the right to exclude them, whether
as persons or property from the joint property
of the United States, is alike unfounded. The
supreme court has already decided that the
slavery restriction of the northwestern ordi-
nance, and the Missouri compromise, cannot
affect the sovereign action of State, after Its
admission. ThatC Court has held that any such
exercise of congressional power, would be sub
versive of the equality of the States. But can
Congress constitutionally so legslate with refer
ence to the Territories ? We maintain that it
cannot. Whether the Constitution regards
slaves as property or not, it is very clear, it
recognizes the claim of the master to the SER
vice and labor of the slave. The Constitution
enioins also on Congress the duty Of securing
this right of the master, by appropriate enact
ments. 1t is right which exists wherever
federal authority is known. 1t is right to be
pronounced by United States Courts and en-
forced by United States officers, in the very
heart of States, which may have passed the
most intolerant laws against it. Wherever the
Constitution and laws Of the United States pre-
vail-wherever federal authority is exercised,
there this right of the master to the service of
his slave, cannot be contradicted. The sover-
eign State, within whose territory this claim Of
the master is made, and where it is to be en-
forced, cannot successfully dispute it. All
State laws that contravene or limit it, are set
aside. We say in comprehensive language,
that throughout all the limits of the United
States-in the Territories and wherever State
governments are organized-on every square
foot of soil within the boundaries of the thirty
one States and Territories, by the operation Of
the Constitution Of the United States, and by
force Of its provisions, the MASTER is entitled to-
and of right can claim the labor of his slave.
/ AS the Territory of the United States, is
their property-as only federal authority origi-
nal or derivative is known there, what power
can Congress have to destroy or impair right,
which the Constitution by the most solemn
obligations protects and enforces, wherever
federal authority prevails? If Congress has
no authority to make any enactment for the
Territories, in violation either OF the spirit or
letter Of the Constitution, and if the right Of
the master to the labor and service of his
slave, whether that slave be q person or a
thing, be one which this government is bound
to enforce everywhere and especially within
the Territories, where it has exclusive authority
is not any proviso excluding the existence of
this relation of master and slave, clearly un-
constitutional? If the laws of the United
States with respect to their subject matter,
must be uniform, and if Congress can pass no
law except where it has the authority SO to do !
by the Constitution, is it not a rank absurdity |
to hold that Congress can make one rule pro.I
tecting the right Of the master within the
States, and establish contrary one within the
Territories, as to the same subject matter?
Would there be the requisite constitutional
uniformity in this sort of legislation? In
other words, has Congress the power within
the Territories to deny and destroy right
which the Constitution explicitly requires, shall
be respected and enforced everywhere? Alb
surdity can hardly 60 further, than in main
tanning any such doctrine.
If any relation Of service, different from
negro slavery, for term of years or for life,
80. -, oon+roo ~ hafuaan tho no rt;ac or othar-
wise, in any one of the enon-slaveholding States,
and is protected by its laws, Congress in legis-
lating for the Territories, could have no right
to impair the contract, or relieve the party
from service directly or indirectly. The right
of the master to the service of his slave stands
on stronger ground than such cases. for it is
fortified by plain provision of the Constitu-
ton, Incorporated in that instrument to protect
him.
1t is also the duty of Congress in legislating
for the Territories, to make such rules and reg
uations, as will not only be beneficial to the
people of the Territories, but also as far as
practicable, such as will secure the rights of all
the States Whatever may be the constitutional
view of the slave, Congress has no authority
to discriminate against what is recognized as
property by some Of the States. The Terri
tories are the common property of the United
States, and Congress in legislating, must act
for the common good of all the States. 1t
must perform the part Of a wise and discreet
trustee, looking to the interests of all the ben
efciaries. An exclusion of what is recognized
as property by many Of the States, would be
not only an injustice to the aggrieved parties,
but such an enactment would lack that uni
formity Of action and bearing, demanded by
the Constitution. Carolina has the same
right to the Territorial soil that Massachu-
setts has. The general government as the
trustee of all the States is bound to consult the
,va1fara of tho citi1ans of Mississinni as much