Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-22

nor can its prohibition by Congress in the
Territories be regarded as an infringe
ment Of the local sovereignty, founded, as
it must be, on natural rights.
But another argument is pressed, most
fallacious in its character. II is asser ed
that, inasmuch as the Territories were ac-
quired by the common treasure, they are
the common property Of the whole Union;
and therefore, no citizen can be prevented
from moving into them with his slaves,
without an infringement ofthe equal rights
and privileges which belong to him as a
citizen Of the United States. But, it is
admitted that the people Of this very Ter
ritory, when organized as State, may ex-
clude slaves, and in this way abridge an
asserted right founded on the common
property in the Territory. Now, if this
can be done by the few thousand settlers
who constitute the State Government, the
whole argument founded on the acquisi-
ton of the Territories, by common treas
ure, seems futile and evanescent.
But this argument proceeds on an as
sumption which cannot stand. Itassumes
that Slavery is national institution, and
that property in slaves is recognised by
the Constitution of the United States.
Nothing can be more false. By the judg-
ment Of the Supreme Court Of the United
States, and also by the principles of the
common law, Slavery is a local municipal
institution, which derives its support excln-
sively from local municipal laws, and be-
yond the sphere of these laws it ceases to
exist, except SO far as il may be preserved
by the clause for the rendition Of fugitiyes
from labor. Madison thought it wrong TO
admit into the Constitution the idea that
there can be property in man; and re-
loice TO believe that no such idea can be
found there. The Constitution regards
slaves alwaysas "persons," with the rights
Of persons, never as property. When
it is said, therefore, that every citizen may
enter the national domain with his prop
erty, it does not follow, by any rule Of
logic or Of law, that he may carry his
slaves. On the contrary, he can only
carry that property which is admitted to be
such by the universal law of nature, writ
ten by Gods own finger on the heart Of
man.
Again: The relation of master and slave
is sometimes classed with the domestic
relations. Now, whileit is unquestionably
among the powers of any State, within its
own jurisdiction, to change the existing
relation of husband and wife, and to es-
tablish polygamy, ! presume no person
would contend that polygamous hus-
band, resident in one of the States,
would be entitled to enter the national
Territory with his harem-his property, if
you please--and there claim immunity.
Clearly, when he passes the bounds of that
local jurisdiction, which sanctions polyg-
amy, the peculiar domestic relation would
cease and it is precisely the same with
Slavery.
Sir, / dismiss these considerations.
The prohibition Of Slavery in the Terri
tory Of Nebraska stands on foundations OF
adamant, upheld by the early policy Of
the Fathers, by constant precedent, and
time-honored compact. II is now in your
power to overturn il; you may remove
the sacred landmark, and open the
whole vast domain to Slavery. To you is
committed this high prerogative. Our
fathers, on the eve Of the revolution, sci
forth in burning words, among their griev-
ances, that George iii, Gin order TO keep
open a market where men should be
bought and sold, had prostituted his mega
tive for suppressing every Legislative at
tempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable
commerce." Sir, like the English mon
arch, you may now prostitute your power
TO this same purpose. But you cannot
escape the judgment Of the world, MOI
the doom of history.
II will be in vain, that, while doing
this thing, you plead, in apology, the prin.
ciple Of seJf-government, which you pro-
fess to recognise in the Territories. Sir
this very principle, when truly admins
tered, secures equal rights to all, without
distinction Of color or race, and make:
Slavery impossible. BY no rule Of justice
and by no subtlety ofpolitical metaphysics
can the right to hold felow-man il
bondage be regarded as essential to self
government. The Inconsistency is toe
fragrant. II is apparent on the bare state
ment. II is like saying t,co and taoo make
three. In the name Of Liberty you oper
the door TO Slavery. With professions 0
equal rights on the lips, you trampl'
on the rights Of human nature. With ;
kiss upon the brow Of that fair Territory
you betray it TO wretchedness and shame
\ Well did the ancient exclaim, in bite
words wrung out by bitter experience
"Oh, Liberty what crimes are done in tn,
name |"
In vain, sir, you will plead, that thi
measure proceeds from the North, as ha'
been suggested by the Senator from Ken
lucky, Mr.. DIXON. Even if this were
true, it would be no apology. But, pre-
cipitated as this bill has been upon thu
Senate, at moment Of general calm, ant
in the absence ofany controlling exigency
and then hurried 10 vote IN advance 0
the public voice, as if fearful Of arrest, j