The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-03-03


if the position be true, that the owner O
a slave may bring the slave into Kansas
and legally hold the slave as such, ant
thus create slavery in the Territory, th
people would not be left perfectly free
their hands would be tied. because th
Territorial Legislature could not exclud,
slavery; it could only prohibit the bring
| ing of any more into the Territory. /
could not divest the title of those thel
held; because, having been legally helt
as slaves and property, the Territoria
Legislature could not divest the maste
of his property in the slave. So that tn,
claim of right to hold slaves in Kansas
at present, comes in direct collision with
the free right of the people to regulate
their own institutions, which is expressl,
conceded in the organic law. You may
turn the question into any form yot
please, and the investigation of every
branch of the question shows conclusive
ly that slavery does not and cannot exis
in Kansas without Legislative sanction
But somebody whispers that Congress.
has not the right to legislate for the Ter
ritories, therefore we can only resort tc
first or elementary principles. ~ isf
I 1. AS judicial question, the power o.
Congress is not an open question, the
Courts in northern and southern States
and the Supreme Court of the United
States, having all uniformly decided in
favor of the authority of Congress to pas:
the ordinance in reference to the North.
western Territory, which was to that Ter.
ritory what the act of 1890 was to Kan.
sas. As legislative and political ques.
ton, and one of policy, it is open but
judicially, it is sealed by an unbroken
current of decisions. When it is a cues
ton under law, then all are bound by
the Judicial decisions upon it; but when
it is a question of repeal or enactment, OF
re-enactment, before Congress or the peo-
lple, the constitutional question is a proper
subject of inquiry and investigation, and
judicial opinions are entitled to Just as
much weight as their reasoning gives
them, like the argument of private cit
izen. @
2. The people of the Territory, by
acting under the organic law, fand they
act under it by voting at any election got
up under its provisions, thereby accept
all its terms and conditions, and admit the
authority of Congress to legislate for
Kansas Territory. The organization and
action under the organic law, by the peo-
pie of Kansas, is an Endorsement of con-
gressional power of legislation. The
people of Kansas cannot act under the
organic law, and at the same time deny
the power of Congress to pass it.
8. Our territorial judges would place
themselves in an awkward dilemma by
deciding against the power of Congress
to legislate for the Territories, as they
hold their offices by virtue of an act of
Congress-by virtue of an exercise of
the claim of power on the part of Con-
gress to legislate for the Territories
Surely they would not sit on the bench
under void authority, one which they
had decided to be void, and try all the
varied questions, even of life and death,
which must come before them.
4. Elementary principles would hardly
help the claimant of the existence of
slavery in Kansas out of his dilemma
for he would search in vain till doomsday
for any elementary principle of law which
would recognize the existence of slavery
where it was not specifically sanctioned
by the law-making power. He might
perhaps find some consolation in going
back to those ages when men claimed the
right of taking the lives of all persons
made prisoners of war, or of sparing
their lives for the convenience of the
eaptor, and making them slaves while it
pleased his fancy to let them live. But
those ages are too dark and barbarous for
me to draw my principles from, and those
who wish to gather theirs there, are well
come to the exclusive opportunities it af-
fords. gods sBg tisr rs .fr
5. But, says another, the right to bring
slaves into Kansas and hold them exists
by. virtue of the extension of the constr
tuition of the United States over the Ter
ritory. How can this be2 What do you
find in that constitution to warrant such
q conclusion There is nothing. The
constitution does not create slavery, it
does not extend slavery. Slavery is not
creature of the constitution, does not
rest upon the constitution for itsexistenoe;
itexists independent of the constitution
its control Is matter of State sovereign
ty, as well asits creationand continuance.
Why, if the constitution sanctioned the
introduction of slavery into the Terrific
ries of the United States, the act of Con-
gress prohibiting it in the territory north
west of the Ohio was certainly uncon-
stitutionai, as an attempt to restrict the
operation of the constitution, by prohib-
ting what the constitution authorized
and yet in no Court North or South, in
which the validity of that act was de-
cided, didany one think of taking the po-
sisioa that the act was unconstitutional,
because the constitution authorized the
introduction of slavery into the Terrific
~, while the act of Congress prohibited
! it, thus coming in direct collision with
the constitution If the position were
correct, the Territorial Legislature would
be powerless, and the power aftera State
organization might wei be more than
doubted. Suppose some State were te
change the time for the emancipation
of children from the control Of the pa
rets. and Gx the age st thirty years, and
a man with children were to move iRtt
Kansas. do youi suppose those ehildreI
would be bound to labor for the paren
until thirty years of ages If negro
brought from the same State could b
compelled 20 serve for life, because ths
law of that State was so, why not tht
child until thirty years of age?
If citizen of slave State could taks
bis slaves into Territory, and hold them
because slavery was legal in the Statt
from which he emigrated, why. ther
otheremigrants mightclaim certaiRrights
because the law of the State from Ehenct
thev came recognized the right; and g
the tights of each citizen of the Terri
tory would depend. not upon the laws o
the Territory, but uPoR the kEs Of th.
State from whence be came; and IF ]