Washington sentinel., 1854-03-14

1t? 1t protects it fully and completely so long
as such territory remains in the condition Of
pupilage. Slaves already there, and such as
may be subsequently, carried there by their
owners, will be protected. When the inhabi-
tants come to form a State constitution, they
may either continue slavery or arrest it.
We now 60 back to Mr.. Badgers amend
ment The meaning of that amendment, if we
understand it, is, that Congress has no power
in the premises. 1t neither reviyes nor repeals
such local laws. 1t does not intervene at all,
either for or against slavery. If it has the
power of Intervention in behalf of slavery, it
has the power of intervention against slavery.
Non-intervention is the rule. The Constitu-
slavery shall or shall not exist. 1t is simply
protective. Under and by virtue of it, slavery
may exist. Any laws, whether French, Eng
lish, or Spanish, prevailing in such territory
anterior to its acquisition by us, that prohibit
slavery, fall dead before the Constitution. If
such territory should be acquired under treaty,
and that treaty contained stipulation in aid
Of such prohibitory laws, such stipulation would
be null and void for want of power in the con-
tracing parties to make it, there being no
power to make treaty that violates the Con-
stitution.
Under the Constitution there is theoretical
existence of slavery in all acquired territory
that is, any man may carry his slaves into it.
This is the view Of the amendment in question.
There is no need of reviving the old French
law. There is no power in Congress to legis-
late in regard to it either the one way or the
other. We presume no one can seriously be-
lieye that Mr.. Badgers amendment will have
the effect of preventing master from carrying
his slaves into Nebraska and Kansas. The
objection to it, in order to be valid, must show
that it either abolishes slavery in that Territory
or inhibits its going there, or that it nterferes
in some way against it. To our mind it has
no such operation. On the contrary, we re-
gard it, taken in its connexion with the rest Of
the bill, as the most complete assertion that
we can conceive Of the doctrine of noninter-
vention. If we had one doubt or misgiving in
regard to it, we should instantly denounce it.
The right of the master to carry his slave
within the Territory is just as complete with
out the existence of the old French law as
with it. Even if Senator Badgers amendment
had not been adopted, the master, in intro
ducing his slave property within the Territory,
would not rely for its protection and security
upon the provisions Of the old French law, but
upon the operative force Of the Constitution.
The old French law affords no protection to his
property which the Constitution itself does not
give. His rights are equal, and the same with
or without that law. IF the master relies upon
the local law for his right to the labor and ser
vice Of his slave, it may become n very serious
question whether, in ntheabsence of constitutions
protection, the local authorities Of the Terri
tories could not repeal or alter that law. 1t is.
far better for the southern master that the
right to the service of his slave should be pro
tected by the operation Of the Constitution
than by the force of any local law.