The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-06-30

proved March 7th, 1920, which being
Inconsistent with the principles of nom
Intervention by Congress with slavery in
the Territories, as recognized by tie leg
islation of 1850, commonly called the
compromise measures, is hereby declar-
ed imperative and void. It being the
true intent and meaning of this act not
to legislate slavery into any Territory or
State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to
leave the people thereof perfectly free TO
form and regulate their domestic institu-
tons in their own way, subject only to
the Constitution of the United States
provided, that nothing herein containen
shall be construed to revive, or put in
force any law or regulation which may
have existed priorto the actof March 9th,
1890, either protecting, establishing. pro-
hibiting, OF abolishing slavery"
Now, can anything be more plain than
that Congress meant that all kinds of
property should eprotecteder respected
in Kansas as elsewhere within the Uni
ted States, or any individual State, and
that no distinction should be made be-
tween citizens of any particular States,
as the Territories are the joint property
of all the States comprising the Ameri-
can Union.
According to the rule laid down in the
construction oflaws in general-"Words
are generally to be understood in their
usual and most known Specification, not
so much regarding the propriety of
grammar, as their general and proper
use" What then is the import of the
act of May 30th, 1854, or Kansas bill !?
Why, simply that all the laws of the Uni
ted States should be in force in Kansas
as elsewhere in the United States, except
the act Of March 9Th, 1920, which is
not repealed but only declared void.-
Void in law means shaving no binding
force or effect to bind parties - conse-
ouently all of those laws thatI have above
cited are according to the general prin-
cipals governing the construction of laws
in full force in the Territory of Kansas.
And, secondly, that ga saving or provi-
so. inconsistent, with the body of the
act is void" Let us examine closely the
proyiso to the 32d Sec. of the act of May
30th, 1854, and see what it does contain.
The first part of said section says: "The
Constitution and all of the laws Of the
United States shall be in force, except
the act of March 9th, $780," which is
not repealed, but only declared void /;
now what is law ? 1t is rule prescrib-
ed by the proper tribunal, in constitu-
tional manner, and over constitutional
subject, and unrepealed /; but repealed
statuteis no law, and an actdeelared void,
never was law.
The proriso says that nothing herein
contained shall be construed to revive,
or. put in force any law or regula-
tions which may have existed prior" to
the void act of 1920. 'seither protecting,
establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing
slavery" Webster says the word reviv-
ed, means ''to bring to life again, to re-
animate" which implies that a thing was
dead. So to revive a law, means to bring
into existence something that once may
have been law, but which is now dead
or, in other words, to enact law anew.
Take either view of the proyiso to the
32d section, and it is of none effect. If
ineonstant, which it really is, if it is ap-
piled to the laws cited above, it is void,
and if it was only lugged in By way of
explanation, it is mere surplusage and
may be strack out as useless. The latter
is the sense in which l take it, as not in
tending to exact any new law on the SUBJ
ieets mentioned. Some may say that
part of those laws above cited were
passed by the Governor and judges Of In
diana but by law of Congress they
were authorized to make laws for said
Territory, and what man does by his
agent he doesby himself. If Congress
appointed agents to make laws. those laws
are as binding as if made by Congress.
But, again, slavery can and does exist
by virtue of the Constitution of the Uni
ted States, and as I have shown above
that no State or Nation haseyerestablish-
ed slavery by positive law but only rec
ognized its existence as police regula-
ton. So the Constitution recognizes it
in the third clause of the Cd section OF
the 9TH article of that instrument, in the
various laws passed by Congress since
| the adoption of that instrument, and in
the decisions of the Supreme Court st
i various times.
/ In relation to some Of your arguments.
you assert that eff we have any law in
the Territory, it is the Common Law oi
England" Fhe civil code brought here
by the French, so far as relates to slay-
cry. was repealed by the act of 1890
The Kansas bill of 1854, in repeating the
Icompromise, expressly enacted that nc
law touching the subject of slavery Wa
lneSiyed in consequence of the repeal, "st
. that we are then in Kansas without posi-,
tive law on the subject" Just in the
same situation of every slave State IN the
, Union, so far as establishing the institu
, ton is concerned. Your next PROPOSE
ton is ssDo the principles OF the common
law prevail here ?" you assert that they
do, and that if applied to the few slave,
now held IN the ferrisory it would eman
, cipate them at once. This assumption
} fatty deny, and in pooof of my assertion
5 would refer the reader to an authorit,
who is entitled to as nuch credit q
, yourself-Sir William Blackstone, Ii,
: great English law commentator. Then
; are but two ways by which the common
3 law Of England could gain any force il
t this country. One is By virtue of thi
E country being setsied by British subjects
E the other by its being adopted by th'
0 proper authorities Of the State or Terri
eli tory. In regard 10 the first mode. Black
! stone says ssThat the common law as sucl
e has no allowance. or authority, in on
= American plansations, because they an
D no part of the mother country 6ut dis
a