Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-14

bic opinion, this law is unconstitutional III Won
will look to the clause ofthe Constitution which
declares the power of Congress over Territories
Belonging to the United States, you win see thai
that power is limited power. 1t does not ex
tend to the property Of the people. It only ex
tends to the property Of the government, and
no further. j read from the third section of ar
ticle four of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power 10 dispose OF
and make all needful rules and regulations respect
ing the territory other property belonging 10 the
United States; and nothing in this Constitution
shall be so construed TO prejudice any claims
ofthe United States or OF any particular State
That is but limited power. What is it? II,
rs to make all needful rules and regulations re
speeding the territory and other property be-
longing to the United States; not to MAX,
needtul rules and regulations respecting the
property of the citizens of the United States
living within the limitsof the territory. Such .
power is not given to Congress; and il it BIZ
exercised at all, tits exercised by construction
and not because there is any express grant
u. think there can DC nothing clearer thai
this. You cannot give to Congress the right
deprive citizen Of his slaves within the limit.
OF the Territory, unless you can give TO Con
gress the right and power to deprive me of nv
horses, or cattle, or any other property which
might think proper to carry there The Sena
tor from Ohio, it is true, declared Yesterday OF
this floor that there was no property in slaves
He declared that the Constitution Of the Untee
States does not recognise property as existing
IN slaves. Sir, the senator is laboring unde'
a great error in that particular. Surely he ha.
not examined the decisions of the Suprem,
Court of the United States on this question
whether property may or may not exist in
slaves. II was, in the first place recognised ii
the Constitution, though not declared to exist
and in the decisions which have been pro
nounced by the Supreme Court of the Unite
States, when this question of property came up
they declar that it is property, and that til,
right of the owner to the slave is rs ample an,
complete rs it is to his lands, or horses, or any
thing else which he may possess Then II i,
property -property recognised by the Consti
tuition and by the Supreme Court of this grea
republic which is held everywhere b,
people living within the limits of the slav,
States-property which has existed from tn,
commencement of this government to thu
present period Of its existence.
II it, then, be property, where is the power t.
lay restraints upon it? Ifyou were to pass
law declaring that q man should not have hi
lands within the limits Of territory which h,
has purchased from the government, it woul
be a law which would strike every man will
indignation and adherence. 1t would strik,
at the very liberty of the people; it would strik,
at the great principle which lies at the founda
ton OF every free governmental principl,
which is contained in the Constitution of til,
United States, and which declares that mans
property shall not be taken, even for publ,
use, without making due compensation to hin
for it. Yes, sir, whenever You destroy tn,
right of property by any action of this govern
ment you strike down the very principle upoI
which the Constitution itself is based; but vol
need not stop there. If you have the powei
and the right, under that clause of the Consti
tuition which declares that Congress may regu
late by all needful rules the property Of til.
United States in the territory belonging to the
United States, to say that that property shall
not be taken into the territory, you have RICH
to say what sort Of labor shall be done within
the limits of such a territory. Have you
right, upon the mere principle that you may
think slavery an evil, to say that the people
living within those territories shall not possess
it? Have you right to judge of this matter
Was it ever intended that you should be the
arbiters in great question like this? TIL,
principle Of this government, which reserves t,
the States all rights not expressly granted tt
the federal government, surrounds and shield
the citizens of this country in the right to hole
the property and to have it protected by the
State government in which they live. That il
the true and only great principle.
Ifthat power, then, does exist on the part Of
Congress, where is it to stop? They might say
to southern men: You shall not 90 into til,
Territory and cultivate tobacco; you shall no,
go there to cultivate cotton. Why? Because,
you may say, it is pernicious to the soil. To-
bacco is an exhausting crop, it wears out thu
soil: cotton is an exhausting crop, it DESTROYS
the soil; it is therefore impoltic that it should
be cultivated within the limits Of the Territory
Why should not government exercise sucl
power, it it can say that citizen living within
the limits of that Territory shall not hold his
Why cannot it exercise the one, i
it can the other? can see no reason why il
should not be done. Can anybody see any rea-
son why it should not be done? Sir, the onl,
solution to this matter is this: Congress has nc
power whatever over the question Of slavery
Congress has no right to interfere with it. All
is us,irpation; it is tramphpg upor
the rights Of the citizens; it is violating the
great charter Of right; and it ought to be re
sisted and opposed by every citizen, to the ex.
tent, at least, that he may oppose it by exer-
cising the constitutional power in repeating such
an OBNOXIOUS act. ] ne government OF tht
United States should know nothing Of the prop
erty Of the citizens of the States but to protee,
it. The moment it loses sight Of this grea,
principle, and attempts to draw geographical
line Of distinction in favor of one section of the
Union and to the prejudice of another, it tram
Piles the great doctrine of the equality of States
and of citizens under foot, and tears asunder
the chart upon which the liberty Of the people
is written. The Union itself can only be pre-
served by respecting, on the part Of the federal
the rights Of the sovereign States
and Of the people living not only within them
but in the Territories also.
But, again: How is it that these gentlemen,
who make such parade here about the repeal
ing of this act, CLAIM, the exclusive right to the
settlement Of these territories? The senator
from Ohio-the very able senator, for will so
call him, and the very courteous senator, who
is exceedingly fair upon every subject but that
relating to the interests Of the slave States
gives us the reason why slavery should not be
permitted to 90 into these Territories What
is that reason? Why, sir, said he, if you per.
nit slavery to 60 there. you will prevent the