Washington sentinel., 1854-03-04

one man can control another without the ope
| ration of law. That is the difference between
the two systems. The civil law existed in tn,
! Louisiana territory, and therefore slavery pc
Sc existed all over that territory. BY the sal,
of il BY Spain TO France, that law was not re
moved for | again say, that by the aequisi
! tion OF a territory or country by one sovereign
from another, the municipal or civil laws the
laws which regulate the right and title to pro
perty, the rights and duties of persons in and
going into that territory are not thereby re
pedted, by the transfer of the sovereignty of d
district or region of country from one sovereign
TO another All its domestic and municipal
laws remain unrepealed, and remain in full
force till repealed, or abrogated, or changed by
the new sovereign. In such an instance the
new sovereign succeeds TO all the rights and
duties of the former soyereign-and among
these rights is the right to repeal or abrogate
the old laws and 10 substitute or enact new
ones but till that right is exercised the old
laws remain in full force, and the citizens are
entitled TO demand and have the efficacy pro-
lection, and benefit of them. This territory
came to us then as slave territory. True, there
were few inhabitants or settlers upon il in this
portion; but nevertheless the slavelaw existed
over it. France, while she had it, did not re.
peal il. Now, then, when it came to our pos
session, or some seventeen years afterwards, in
1920, we did, pro faato, repeal that slave-law !;
we abrogated it under the right which the new
sovereign always has to make domestic laws.
Prior to that time this law remained in force.
At that time we abrogated and revoked il. In
the territory here spoken of, in the Nebraska
Territory north of 800 30<, and west of Mis-
souri, and Iowa, we abrogated that law.
Now come 10 what was the amendment of
the senator from Kentucky, (Mr. DIxoN,( to
show that it reinstated slavery there. | have
not the amendment before me; but have read
il so often that | recollect distinctly its word
ing. FIRST, it repealed the eighth section Of
what is called the Missouri compromise; and
it declared further, not that it was repealed
simply, but that the laws should be the same
there as though that bill had never passed.
That is the language of the senator's amend,
ment.
Mr.. DIXON. No, sir.
Mr.. PETIT. What he intended is another
thing 1t is totally inmaterial as to that. ]
take it now for granted that he did not intend
to create slavery; vet | said to my friend from
Illinois here, tMr. DouGIAs,) Immediately on
the presentation of it, that could not 90 for
that measure. | go for leaving this question
clear, that the people there shall determine for
themselves.
Gentlemen say that the Constitution protects
slavery there. Well, if it does We cannot abro.
gate it. 1t is perfectly plain that if the Con-
stitution protects slavery there, we need have
no enactment on the subject. We can neither
strengthen the Constitution nor weaken it. But
slavery existed, as have shown, before the Mis-
souri, compromise was passed. II you repeal
that law, what do you do? You will have re-
pealed two laws. You repealed the slave law
BY the act of 1920, and by the law of 1854 you
repeal that repeating law, but you do not re.
vive the old law. But the senator's amend
ment says that the law shall be the same as if
the Missouri compromise act was never passed.
That in direct terms rcvives the old law.
Mr.. DIXON. The senator surely is mis-
taken in my amendment
Mr. PETIT. wish the senator would
give me n copy. .@ .
Mr.. DlNON. will say what it is precisely
The senator will find that, SO far from saying
that the law shall be the same as before, it only
says that the people shall have the same right
to take their slaves there as they would have
had if the Missouri compromise had never been
passed.
Mr.. PETIT Exactly Then you would
have a right under it to take slaves there and
protect them. / am not impugning the sena.
tors motives. ! am only giving the language
of his amendment a fair, not even critical ex-
animation. ! am stating its legal effect. 1t is,
however, question which is very easily settled
by reference to the language of the amendment
have it here, and / will read it:
".Aad be it fuJtter enactea That so much of the
eighth section of an act approved March q, 1890
entitled An act 10 authorize the people of Mis-
souri, Territory 10 form constitution and Stale
Cove rnment, and for the admission of such State
into the Union on an equal footing with the origi-
nal States, and 10 prohibit slavery in certain Ter
riiorcs,' rs declares That in all that territory
ceded by France 10 the United States, under the
name of Louisiana, which lies north of 800 3O'
north latitude slavery and involuntary servitude,
otherwise than the punishment Of crimes whereof
the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall
be forever prohibited, shall not be so construed
as 10 apply 10 the Territory contemplated by this
act or TO any other Territory OF the United States
but that the citizens OF The several States or Ter
ritores shall be at liberty TO take and hold their
slaves within any Of the Territories of the United
States, or Of the States to be formed thereirom
as if the said act. entitled as aforesaid and ap-
proved as aforesaid, had never been passed"
Now, sir am | mistaken at all? / have
shown that it reinstates the law rs though the
Missouri compromise had never been passed.
Let me say to the senator from Kentucky, that
the bill now before you does no such thing.
Be not deceived in it. i say, that, in my
Judgment as shall show before get through,
while you may take your slave there and hold
him. so long as you can collar him, and con-
troll him, yet you will have no law there by
which you can enforce your right to him. But
by your amendment, putting the law on the
same footing that it was prior to the passage
Of the Missouri compromise, you would have
re-establisheG the slave law all over the Ter.
'rtory for it existed before. and by the law of
1920 you repealed it. That is the view have,
and | have no question about ii. If | were in
terrogated as lawyer, should be compelled
to give that opinion; because the present bill
leaves the Territory without any law on that
subject. There is no law there for enforcing
the ownership to horse, or cow or any
other property; nor will there be any until the
legislative authority shall define the manner of
protecting the rights of property.
You may say that it is right at common
law-an inaienable right but naked rights
are good FOR nothing unless you have the