The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-02-22

John w. Taylor, Of New York, who ned prssss,
SLAYER. the r:ss boz Sut sns S sss
OF nnAour was elected 70 ths chair Of Henry Clay.
o. the other Hoass. II 10 needless to ado that
DAY oouli expect that smnAst trust An Arrogant and
usNhnufg ostfaoism is applied not only 10 ali who
will not be its msnik novel test for on !. IS bsss
t.ircduosd shieh would have excluded all ID. fathers II
the I:publie.evsn Warrington jefferson aod Frsntiu
Yea tir startling II may be, but inois putssls Csu
thess Dlusrious descend from their realms ,hovs
and revisit the land which they nobIy dscassd 10
freedom thsy could with their we'll kno Sn Aud "a
corded opinions sgAissi savsry rscsvs for
the Prsstdsncy from sther OF the cid political parties
Nor could Jshn jay drst Chief Justice great
emplG Of Judicial vrtuewho hated slavery he loved
usuce-b< admitted to those duties with VII
bis name on earth 10 ndissoubly associated To euch
extent has our government departed from the ancient
These fAss prepare oomprshsnd the true charAc
nr OF the change with regard 10 the Territories In 1887
nopay dsdieatsd TO ssdou without Opposition or oritl-
csm The intsrcct Of slavery then covered every inch
OF soil belonging to the national govsrnmsst Louisiana
An immsnss region beyond the bounds Of tbs oiginai
staes was afterwards soquirsd and in 1890 after vehs-
msnt struggle which shook the whole land disc ON ted
with savsry This gsnsnt which in ts very terms
Was exclusively applicable to particular territory scqnr
Cd from France has been accepted nnsl down to tss
present session of Congress- but now r here In 1854
freedom Il suddenly summoned TO suresder even her
hard won moisty Of this territory Hese three stages
q nrst ANIL ecsscerstsd to s:dom st the second oay
half while at the third AL IL to be open to slavery Thus Is
tbs original policy Of the government absolutely
Slavery, which It the beginning sectional institu
In exalted national Institution and ali our
domain 10 thrssteasd BY its blishsas shadow.
but the prohibition OF slavery in the serrior Is
failsd ~ Unconstitutional and this account the MI
souri, compromise IL prosonnced void and OF no efsc
Nov, without considering misutely this sources from
nicn the OF CONGRESS over tho saons aomsin is
from the express grant in the constitu
ton to make rnee and regulations OF
the srrsory or from the power secessar spsd gov
en territory acquired BY conquest to
me imp ssibe deny Its existence without invadatisg
large portion Of the legislation OF the country from the
adoption Of the constitution down to tbs prssenl day
This power WAS asserted before the constitution 1t
net denied prohibited by the Constitution itself IL
has ssen exercised from the st sxsapcs OF the govern
msn and has been recognised By the three
OF The govsrpms pt-,hs the lsgislAte and
the Judicial Of every kind thick In its
support Indeed, the very bill before
control OF the territory clearly incor with those
principles Of sovereignty which said to be viola ted by
Congressional prohibition Of slavery.
Here are provisions eetermining the main feAtures in
the governmenthe sibution Of powers In the execu
tive The legislative and judicial departments, aud ,hs
manner In which they thA be lively constituted
securing 70 the President with the consent OF Senate
the appointment Of the goversor the ADD the
judges and TO the people the election issisAture-
ordaning the qualifications OF voters the salaries OF the
publia officers aHd the daily compensation Of the
bers Of the legiaiAture suey II Congress mar eabNss
these preysions without interference with hs rights
OF Territorial sovereignty may also prohibit slavery
Bat there II n the very bill express prohibition on
The Ter Dry borrowed from the ordinances Of 1857 and
p.s . - aG N. ssro Or
prersly declared that should BE- posed upon
the property Of the United States" Now here is clear
ard upquestionabIs restraint ueon the sovereignty Of
Territories md States The public Ian 10 Of the Untsd
States situated within organized Territory State
cannot be regarded IS the Instruments and
iafy and proper to execute the sovereign OF the
pAtoD Ike Notifications arssnals and navy yards They
are strictly In the nature OF private property OF the
prohibition, would clearly be within the field Of oct ali
shon liable Use the lands OF other pronstrios Wood
customary burdens and incidents. Judgment that
bury bss declared, In wsn land situated vIsbin Nh.
Where the United Jss and which thss h.vs sss
sm = q parcpla Object: :sssr special Or .;..s.
YWss sS: ssIa;
r-'sume, theo, that without this prohibition these
lands wosld b liable taxation Does any question
thiS Nobody. The conclusion then follows that BY this
= ION hs,. dspivsd other And sss.s
Of an essential portion OF Its sove eighty.
The Supreme Court Of the United States have given
great promns to the sovereign right taxation IL the
States In the case Of Providence Bank vs. Pltman,
Peters, 614, they dsclare:-
That shs taxing power q vital importance; that n
ausSnsas of such power & never S !. s. ssun Cd ~ ~
And ssas in The of Dobbins Commits donsrs Of
Ee County 10 Peters. 447, they say
70 ne tss. safs
i. .. sivs win .hs upon al
persons and property witkin the jurisdiction OF the AN
Now call upon the Senate to remark that this sacred
right said to to essent to the very existence Of gov
eminent, Il abridged in the bin now bsiore Ne
For myself, do not doubt the power Of Congress to
sstsn the restriction upon the Territory AID
lpon the State a. has slwsys been done; bat am st
r~s TO sss what grounds this be pl.csd, which
will also support the prohibition Of slavery. The
10 urquesionabs inring' M OF sovereignty ~
r.eied By orr supreme Court fer mere than can b -
lam unwilling {, admit s,r, that the prohibition Of
sav.y 4 The territories in just sense infringe.
The inmuahls Law Of nature and a. suoh, cannot BE-
consicsred natural ncdsnt to any Sovereignty, sspe
sislIy !, country .hich has soenuly d.e.Isd IN Il,
men to e liberty and the pursuit Of hA ppnsss In an
sse OF civilization and In land OF rights, slavery may
s BE- torvted In fact but its prohibition, within
nicipa juriscictos by The thereof BY
OF the 5tss Of the Union, cannot be considered In
frscten Of natural right nor can It's proLbl:i By Con-
Ia the Territories be infringe OF
the local sovereignty The asserted right to make slave
ia against saural right and be just element Of
But snoihsr argument 10 presed which seems most fal
Aeious in is character It asserad that inssnnch
'ss Territories were acquired BY the common trsasure
the efore, citizen be from moving into
Them with his Slaves without Infringement Of the
equal rights and privileges ~hch belong TO him - ct
of the United States But II ID admitted that the
people Of this very Territory, when orsasizsd State
may exclude slaves ant in this Abrdee assert d
Now this be done BY the few thousand settlers who
eonsstuts III: State government the whole ssumsns,
founded the acquisition OF the Territories by com
mon treasure, falls TO the ground.
rot thu argument proceeds on An assumptions which
cannot stand. It that slavery II national insti
tusn and the property in slaves IL rscognz b. the
utution Of the United states Nothing be more
fslse. By tho judgment OF the Supreme Court Of this
Used States, snd Ao by the principles Of the common
law, slavery il local municipal institution, which de
rivss it, support eIcusvev from local municipal avs
and beyond the sphere Of these laws to exist
cept far ~ II may be preserved BY the csute for the
rendition II fusitives from labor hsdbon thought
wrong TO admit into the constitution the Idea that there
be property Ia man. and reoioe to besvs that 70
zach isea BE- found shers che constitution regards
slaves always persons with the rights Of psrsons
-psvsr ~ property When 1t Is said, therefore, that
every citizen ents into the national domAin with his
property It does not follow, By any rule Of logic or Of
law that he may carry his slaves On ths contrary he
car only csy that property shish admitted TO suoh
~ The universal Law Of nature, Written BY Goos
ger & a the heart tf map.
Asain: The relation Of master and slave d someti
cAAd with the Domestic relations. Now, while IL Is
qsestionsb- withis the power Of any SAs within M
to change the existing relation Of hu band
WIFE and TO establish polygsmy, presume no person
wouH oontsrd that . poygamous hpsbspj, resident In
one Of hs States would be emit ed 70 enter the nstonA
territory vi,h bis hnem-bis property. II you pisMe-
ard there claim immunity from al Congressional pro
hibhon. Clearly, when be passes the bounds Of tha