The Camden weekly journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1853-1861, 1854-06-13

| it Is received maxim in the law, that you
cannot do that indirectly which you cannot do
directly. You cannot expressly prohibit the
citizens of the southern States from emigrating
to the Territories. II you prohibit them from
taking their slaves with them, you practically
exclude them; therefore you cannot prohibit
them from taking their slaves with them.
When we consider that the Constitution re.
cognised slavery in it's most extreme form, the
importation Of slaves, that it requires fugitive
slaves to be delivered up; that it admits this
institution as an element Of representation, is it
not monstrous assumption of power for Con
gress the mere creature Of the States, to un-
dertake to stigmatize this institution, and put
it under the ban in the Territories, and all un.
der an implied power derived from principal
power, itself of doubtful validityl 1t is clear,
| think, that the power to prohibit slavery in
the Territories cannot be derived from the
power to acquire territory.
There is one view Of this subje which arises
out of the treaty acquiring this Kansas and Ne
braska territory, to which it may not he amiss
to aliude. According to the treaty, "the in
habitants of The ceded territory shall be pro-
tected in the free enjoyment Of their property
Now, is it not clear, that any inhabitants Of
Louisiana, living at the time Of the treaty,
and now living, would have the right to take
their slaves into Kansas or Nebraska to the
same extent now as at the ratification of the
treaty? Ii so, then the Missouri restriction is
in violation of the treaty az to them, and void.
But the Constitution provides that the citi-
zens of each State shall be entitled to all privi.
A. G. o,s,
citizens of Louisiana have right to 60 into
these territories with their slaves, the citizens
of every other State have the same right.
pass on to consider this Missouri restric.
ton by the test of that great principle of jus.
tice, which above all things else should charac-
terize the Federal Government in its action
towards the States. The argument on this
point will be brief for the teaching Of justice
is not to be worked out by rigid logic; it is
light from ab.ve which flashes upon the truth
fnl soul. How did we acquire this territory?
By purchase. Where did the money come
frum9 From the South and the North. What
is the irresistible conclusion That the terri
tory so acquired should be administered by the
Federal Government for the mutual benefit of
both North and South This exclusion Of slave
ry is practical seqnestration of it for the ex.
elusive benefit of the North. Is this justice :
1t is perversion of terms to speak of such
action and Justice in the same breath. 1t IS
one kind of justice; the justice the wolf ex.
tends to the lamb; the justice unrelenling
power extends to its deftnceless victims. 1t is
wonderfully like the justice arrogant Rome gran.
ted to exhausted Carthage, fotbidding her TO
touch Saguntum or pass the Iberus. 1t is an
established prlnciple of the equity jurisprudence,
the most beautiful system Of morality extant
out of the Bible, that if A. purchases land with
the money of B. there is a resulting trust that
A. shall hold the land for the benefit of B.
Should not this persuasive morality apply to
the Federal Government in reference to the
purchase Of these territories? Government in
its most sublime aspect is but the highest mani
iestaton of human justice. 1t was grand
conception of Il great king which induced the
sentiment, that it justice were banished from
all the rest of the earth, it should at least find
refuge in the breasts of kings. How much
more appropriate thut this sole resting place of
Justice should be in The counsels OF the great
republic.
The Missouri restriction, being liable to such
vital objections, should be repealed. But its
repeal is resisted by a large portion Of the
North on various grounds; principally on the
ground that it is violation of good faith
This assumes that the Missouri restriction was
compact, which cannot admit. But grant.
ing for the sake Of the argument, that it was a
compact, its violations by the North in refer.
ence to Oregon and the Mexican acquisitions
absulve the South from obligation. But, by
very special pleading, it is contended that it
referred to the Louisiana Territory. But if
there was any principle in it, it applied to all
territory, otherwise why was it applied to Tex
as, and so applied as principle? But admit.
ting it was merely to be applied to the Louisi.
ana Territory, there are the strongest grounds
tor insisting that it in,luded Oregon as a part
of Louisiana The United States constantly
claimed Oregon as part of Louisiana from
1903 up 10 1919, when Florida was purchas-
I'd. after which we claimed additionally under
the Spanish title. In 1905, under the Louisi-
ana title, Louis and Clarke were sent UPON
their expedition to the Columbia river. In
1874 under the treaty with England, providing
for the restitution Of conquered places, Astoria
was surrendered to the United States. The
convention for the mutual occupation of Ore
gon, in 1918, between this Government and
England, made while Mr.. John Quincy Adams
was Secretary Of State, went upon the asser-
ion of our title under France 1t is true we
also insisted on contiguity Of territory and dis.
covery; but the only paper title we had up to
1919, was under the French treaty. Our title
to Oregon, as part of Louisiana, was snstain-
ed by the first statesmen in the country, by
Calhoun, Clay, Buchanan, and others. l in.
sist, therefore, that Oregon was part Of Lou
siana. At any rate, this Government, by its