The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-09-07
For the National Era.
PROPERTY IN nan, III TIE TERRITORIES

| fectly understood-the question of ihe consti-
tutiODal right of property in man in the Terri
tories. In all the discussions aud documents
on this subject emanatiDg from the South, we
see il continually urged, that as the new Terri
tories annexed to the Union are purchased with
the blood or treasure of the nation, the inhab-
itants of the Southern portion of it should have
a right to move into them with their property,
as well as the people Of the North; that the
different species of property should make no
difference in this right; but that If the people
of the North are allowed to migrate into the
Territories with their cattle or merchandise, it
is manifest injustice that the citizens of the
South should be prohibited from carrying into
them their property, which consists IN slaves.
There is great plausibility In this view of the
subject aud there can bs no doubt that il is
sincerely held by NEST Shareholders as en- I'M
denisbly just one; and it probably affects the
minds of many of the most intelligent states
men of the free States, who, while they exceed
ingiy deprecate the introduction of slavery into
Territories originally free from it, SEQ not how
they can honorably refuse it, in view of this
reasoning.
have not yet seen this claim of Shareholders,
to carry slavery into the Territories, properly
ton | should assert that this was not the
true issue. Instead of denying the right Of
carrying property, of any kind, into the Terri
tories | should admit it. Garry, | should say,
any property you please into the Territories
where you intend to resde-even slaves, by the
thousand, if you wish and no one will object
to it, or obstruct you. But now, the question
Is, in what character shall these blacks, or col
ored people, you have brought with you be
considered by the Government of the Territory,
when settled in it? The Government Of the
Territories of ths United States resides In Con-
gress, (Con, Art. 4, sec. g. clause p and, Of
course, Congress stands in the same relation
to any Territory that the Legislature of any
State stands in regard to such State. But it
is universally admitted that the Legislature Of
any State has right to ordain or prohibit
slavery within its borders, unless restrained
from either act by its Constitution; and it is
not disputed that where slavery is merely ig-
nored-that is, where the right of property in
man is simply, n0t expressly, admitted, not be-
ing a natural right-it ceases TO be legal, ss is
the case in Massachusetts, and other free
States.
Now, the Constitution of the United States
does notrecognise the right Of property in man.
The trainers Of that instrument were very care
full to avoid such a recognition. Even Mr..
| Madiron-himself a s!sveholder--oljected to
any expression which would seem to acknowl-
edge il; and wherever slaves ere intended or
supposed to be alluded TO, IS in the clause for
the rendition Of fugitives from service, they are
never desi grated as property, bat as "persons"
The Government of the United States is id
mtted to be one Of limited powers, and none
can te assumed by it which is not expressly
granted in tho Constitution. But the Consti-
tution gives no power to the General Govern
ment to ordain slavery; and as it is not nat
ural right and not recognised by the Consti-
tuition, it can have no legal existence in Ter
ritorY governed exclusively by tie Congress Of
the United States. Every inhabitant of such
| Territory, therefore, Of whatever color, or in
| whatever character he may have been brought
into the Territory, is entitled 20 freedom from
| the courts when claiming it; they may no.
| protect the master n al alleged property in
! him, which they cannot recognise. Courts
have everywhere determined that slave
brought with the consent Of his master into o
State net recognising slavery, is ip8o factO Free
There can be no reason why the same rule
should not apply to Territories.
If this view Of the question is correct aud
should be perceived to bs 50 by the Courss there
would be no necessity whatever shat Con gress,
| in she admission Of q Territory, should provide
either for or against the iGgroas Of slavery !;
| there would be no power to mako g law for it,
| and it could not exist without law as bsing
naturally unlawful But unhsppiiy, as the
Governors and Judges Of the Territories are usu-
ally appointed from the slave States, where
the right Of property in man is generally main
tanned, and the injustice of excluding such prop
erty from Territories is as generally alleged, no
decision in favor of the right of freedom can
BIO expected; and it becomes therefore n5cessa-
~ to fOrtify this right by express provision,
such as that Of the Missouri Compromise, or
the amendment of Mr.. Sumner to the Nebras-
ks bill of Mr.. Douglass; and it is therefore to
be hoped that every member of Congress op-
posed to slavery, from the North, will give that
amendment his support which will be nothing
more than securing plain decision of justice,
| for which the Courts cannot be depended on.
Should the contrary action prevail, and the
condition proposed by Mr.. Douglas be enacted,
that the people of Territories may determine
for themselves whether they will sdmit slavery
or not, is would be Gb initlo null and void, and
ought to BIZ SO determined by the Courts, if they
were just and impartial. 1t is like enactng that
the question whether citizens should be allow
ed to rob each other, or exempted from paying
their debts should be left to the peoplo No
| Government has . right to leave such questions
to the people | have shown that the Govern
ment of the United States is not empowered to
Shall 0AtSb III d
ritory or not; and, consequently, it cannot con-
fer the power of such determination On the peo-
pie.
hope, Mr.. Editor, that these views will be
seriously considered by every Representative
from the North who imsgines himself obliged
by justice, however reluctantly, to give bis sup
port to the Nebraska bill, as presented by Mr..
Douglas. ]. p B.
! PRE-EMPTIoE RIGHTS IN KANSAS AND Ne
BRAsKA-The Washington Union publishes
the Attorney Generals opinion On presumption
rights in Kansas and Nebraska. He says the
act of Congress gives presumption only in such
of tbs lands ceGed under the condition of being
first offered as public sale, are no mere open to
presumption by act Of Congress, than was the
military reservation at Fort Leayenworth
that those lands cannot be taken by settlers
under claim of presumption, and such claims will
be void in law, and will confer no right 90 which
demand for patent can be made from the
Commissioner of Public Lands Moreover, il
viii be the duty of the President to maintain
by force the pGghted faith of the United States