The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-03-01


Utah and should make par. q IT, ooastituuse tAsss
man, might transfer thsmsslss With their hsrsns 70
Any Of the Tsritorss and live open eoassmpt Of
NV and rslgioa II EVIDENT tails do sriae 10 SQUAD,
TED condition. BY the wants Wishes o. its
inhabitant. but y remote eqsa
snol sm ~ voud 3 S.s usdsr the
aghosim q the Wis man Of rssl to the contrary not
withstsndi,g For, II vn b observed, that the o.sss
sssumd which ton N both the prsopls and the practice
az ere demand are those whore the hight hold the pro-
psrty prohibited by the io,a Aws and, indeed this
psrty in the articles were recognized legal condition.
The controversy would be ovsr without any Investigation
y the Or Il. il Sn Win
It. what law then governs the incidents OF such pro.
hibisd property thus claimed to Be hsd IN Opposition 70
the law OF tine pAosS Not the tuon laws Of the
UnitSd States for they do not touch the subject ct all
nor has Oongrsss ~ had the disposition, the sshtsst
people OF these eommuntss. We have only the laws Of
the respective States to fall back upon to regulate the
tenure q thsss species Of property and e protest M On
the constitution Of the UnNd States, which gives kiAd
Of motive power to the properly laws Of the several
proosM more easily asserted than proved or
Ard thus brought to this strange practical 70.
suhat In AL controversies relative to these prohibited
articles not the statute book Of the country where
they are to b heA which must b consulted 10 ascertain
the rights Of the parties but the statute books Of other
governments whose citizens thus in effect bring their
laws with them, and hold on to them.
But In proceeding further In this Investigation our
difficulties are increased nssad Of being diminished.
! DO not know tina. I understand precisely the
pos tion which II assumed with respect TO the
extent Of this principle Of sxsmpu ,n-whsher It
applies to the oitissns Of STATE ss to enable
there hold any property recognised by the laws
Of such STATE; or whether the exemption becomes uni
vsraal allowing ~ the citizens Of the Unite States 70
ealed to DO property BY the Of one Of tho S.ts
although not recognised property BY the laws Of her
southsr SENATOR whether this sxpAnsion Of reccg
pon t once spreads the law Of property In each stAts
the United or emily for it, own citizens, tina. they
msy joy the rights u their residences - 10
their old Ones the former this expansion "a not only
wonderfully expansive to Territorial urisdstlop, bus
to uso ever persons bringing within tbs elias
tic grasp Of State Senate the whole body Of the Ansn
who concur in claim OF xsmpti,n concur As to its
tent and the consequences 1t brings with 1t The doctrns
~ gather IL from the oecaIatiors have met with upon
this fubjsct and OF which have quoted and from
the nature Of the wrong complained Of seemed to -
have already said to carry with Il claim on behalf OF
the citizens Of each sits to take with thsm their
prty which they hold ct home and to srjoy 1t In this
connmen "Terris0ry"
And this have been the posi- taken by Mr.
sspafs upon this subject that in answer to remark Of
Mr. Niles he placed this right upon other grounda upon
the comfy Of the States OF this Union" What that means
10 the investigation Of . constitutional claim ~
do rot undsrssnd shA not undertake to Investigate
Mr. Miles, in reply stated the proposition Of Mr. Calhoun
any Of The Tsrrprss and enjoy the sms rights Of
property there which they enjoyed In tbs States from
which they removed. Az this position stated without
Of Nj. Calhoun.
The wrong complained Of is that the exclusion OF any
domain excludes ora the ep ,yment 81 su n domain all
the St1ens Of the STATES where such property exists and
TINS deprives them Of constitutional rgat This IL the
teury bu does ihs remedy stop with its repsraton
DOES II 90 far beyond 1T citizen of Massachusetts,
holds properly In thai state, and by virtue Of its laws
whose liz trodu son into Oregon VIII suppose Is
dcted by local eislAtion. citizen OF South Carolina
is IN the condition With respect to other kind
Of p,Sp.,y Iss isjury to each and which y y said
perty With him. and thus deprived Of his constitutional
"equAlity Of enjoyment"
But can each take advantage Of the laws o, another
State and Introduce articles rot rscsgnizsd such by
those Of his owns II the principle extends thus far II
certainly reaches beyond the right II to guard
each othsr The citizen 81 ssusS S.on. such Is the
els iw, cannot enjoy his portion Of tbs prblic laud
whou the power to take bis slkves Nth him. and there
snds his paint end tbs citizen of Is sub
eot to the rame inca rAey less he take his bank
bills With him some ott prohibited property and there
each case We satisfy tbs original demand; but does new
then arise, which toa Northern the right
to buy slaves and to ahs them to the common Territory
lot because he cannot with them which tae 6rt
position, but besaue else under other circo
canoes enjoys that privileged And eco1sru1o docs
sassy lrsei about sss.nss sAa:sss /. sss ooadiaos
ss q IN tie pr.tsssioss Of the parties II nut
M % sv Il
to plscs him equality with the Who oAnno,
held slaves the laws q his osn Stats, and then It
oss The latter to purchase and In roduos slaves Ao in
order that the inequality created By equality may Itself
he made equal do mot pretend TO understand this pro
ress--l only state It,
pu. II the remedy Is snansd to redress o, the wran
conplanfd othas H. to the establshmsnt OF the hyh
to introduce into the common tsrrtory" all prop srty
which man holds in his SAts-theu enter new
plore II leave that to those who favor TVS doctrine.
But 1t would work extraordinary results In country
from different portions Of the Union wouli have different
rghts-scms to hold kind Of properly and SONS ano
is to override The losa laws and t. resuss the iss
dents Of property prohibited By the latter Isstead Of
Harmonious system Of jarsprudence equally controlling
ell the Affairs Of country, there would be . system
surpg their rights by the places whence they came with
different codss for the different emgrsnts nat brought
Dus asp p THIS - s
the community. He who believes that such stats Of
thrg would b the fair consequences o. any claim nader
tolerated by public opinion Ia State Territory
stands the ns iutioas Of his country and tas character
cstsiniy rights Of property originating and
recognized and prot cted in the country to wh,h such
property transferred may sostimes involve Questions
touching the laws Of the place whence IL came sush
questions carry with them claim by which those for
egD laws override and override the uspr adsnes OF
other country They are auxiliary TO the ends o. ustis
ia determining tbs original rights OF the rites sthsy
do mot take the place and supply the psos Of the does
tic laws rcr undertake TO superssds them
Nor the difficulties obvisted though they may In
some MEASURE he changed by assuming tina. 1t Ia the
duty of the roria Leg atues the necessary
laws reccg izpg existence and oeh the incidents
and protecting the epjoymen. Of this IN srdoted proper
IT, AS practical nsAsure there would be extrems cif
c1ty Ia procuring such iegsson and Ia carving 1t into
ELECT where both depend upon the action OF remote
community which from the very nature Of the proposition,
must hs opposed ~ the introduction OF slavery ad where
public opinion In powerful In anJ portion OF
country, no matter where the o. her may be. do OF
touch toe question Of Congregational ntsence having
herssoofs 10 show that Congrsss has right
20 egsstr the subject OF slavery any In Ter
ri'ory than In State ts power, arising from scs.y,
Ia exhausted By the establishment and regulation Of pro
Per judicial tribunals leaving tn the Territorial Legsla
tures the exercise of their Ieuulst local funeons In
vovfnp al questions concerning The nature End ia dens
OF properly, aovirg 1t their plsssurs
Orce coscede that Congress- Any power
ton o. slavery that ment 1t has all power no oon
49,