Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-03-21


with the Constitution are Immediately an.
nulled--tbat laws prohibiting Slavery, being
thus inconsistent, become ut once Woodland
that laws recognising, and providing for, Sla-
very, being consistent with the Constitution,
are protected fully and completely so long as
such territory remains in the condition of pu-
pilage"
The Richmond (va.) Wing says, @We have
never entertained the idea that the object OF
this amendment was to lay any restriction upon
the introduction OF slaves into the Nebraska
Territory"
ave care notv it continues, whether the
bill reyives or repeats the old French law, in
force prior to 1920, recognising or establishing
Slavery in that territory. Without q positive
restriction, such as that enacted under the Mis-
souri, Compromise, the introduction of elaves is
permitted in this Territory The Constitution
Of tho United States will recogniseits existence,
and that is all the South need ask for Let
the prohibition be removed, and then Southern
citizens can emigrate to the country with their
slaves, and take the chances of its Admission
into the Union as slave or nOn-slaveholding
States. This privilege they have right to,
and in the absence of any special prohibitory
enactment by Congress it is guaranteed to
them by the Federal Constitution Slaves are
recognised as property by the Constitution, and
those holding them are as much entitled to
their possession in the public territory as they
are to any other species of property"
These quotations show the prevailing opin-
ion among shareholders They will not hazard
:, .,,h.tao+;oI ,.o;, Co. CIov ,,rov a v,aro
abstraction. Let no opponent of the Bill hope
for its defeat through discussions among them I;
and let not the Northern people be duped, by
this clamor against Badgers amendment into
the notion that it is any concession to the
North. The extracts we have submitted ex,
clude any such idea
In view Of these Pro-Slavery dogmas con-
corning the Constitution, universally main
tanned by shareholders, boldly proclaimed, per-
tinaciously urged, constantly acted upon by
them, the opponents Of the Bill in the Senate
sought, to obtain an expression of opinion in
favor of the right Of the People Of q Territory,
through their Territorial Legislature, to ex-
olude Slavery. The Shareholders openly de-
MED the existence of any such right, and their
cherished dogma that the Constitution theo-
retically recognises the existence Of Slavery in
all Territory Of the Union, and protects it
when actually existing there, involves neces-
sarily the denial Of any such right.
And yet they all arrayed themselves in sup
port of the Bill, which Processes to confer upon
the People of Territory the right to form
their own institutions! Why's Because of
the qualifying clause, "subjeet to the Constitu-
tion of the United States"-a qualification with
very different meanings in the two sections Of
the Union-being construed by the slaveholding
supporters of the Bill to exclude all Territorial
legislation against Slavery, while by it's North
ern advocates it is innocently asked, Has the
Territorial Legislature the right to legislate
against the Constitution of the United States? y
Deliberately through design, this Bill is in
vested with two faces, SO framed as to admit of
two interpretations; and the majority that
passed it through the Senate, knowing this to
be fact, to man voted down an amendment
which would have given it one face, one voice,
one meaning that amendment was, that un-
der the Constitution of the United States, to
which the legislation of the Territory was to
be subject, the Territorial Legislature would
have the right to exclude Slavery. The slave
holders voted against this, because they deny
such right-the Northern supporters Of the
Bill voted against it, leaving us in doubt wheth-
or they believe in the existence Of such right
or not; but the vote, as whole, was COM
plete denial Of its existence. And yet the
Northern advocates of the Bill are shameless
enough in full view Of this vote, to claim North
ern support for the Bill on the ground that it
recognises the right Of the People Of a Territory
to form their own institutions, and 10 exclude
Slavery. On this Lie, the supporters of the
Bill in the Northern States rest their whole
argument
THE QUESTION VIEWED POLITICALLY.
Tho Nashvilie Tenn True Who rather n