The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-02-24


sumed to be free until the contrary j
shown. 1t is well known principle tha
the positive enactments of a foreign gov
ernment must be proven, but that tn,
laws of nature are supposed to be known
and to govern in all courts. The nam,
of William Wickham will be recognized
at least BY every Virginian, as that of /.
lawyer whose opinion is entitled to th'
greatest weight. And I will conclude
this array of American authorities BY
quoting remark of his reported in tht
case of Butt against Rachel, in Cd Hen
ming and Mumford. 1t was arguendo
and is as follows:
"Mr. Writ contends that Indians are
naturally entitled to freedom-so are ne
groes. But this does not prevent theil
being slaves. Iadmit, the right to make
them slaves must depend on positive in.
stitution. Our right is founded on the
act of Assembly for the better govern
ment of servants and slaves.''
Thus, where it was to the interest oi
his cause to have maintained the natural
right to hold human beings as slaves, he
comedies the point, and bases it where
alone it can ever stand, upon the positive,
municipal regulation of each particular
State or government / think, sir, l have
demonstrated that the law of nature viii
never carry slavery into the Territories OF
Nebraska and Kansas, or maintain and
protect it when there. Southern gentle
men need not
"Lay that fattering JUNCTION to their souls"
I proceed now to show that quite as
little in that respect is to be expected from
the constitution of the q. s. That blessed
instrument will protect slavery, and the
rights of shareholders, whenever it exists
whenever the municipal laws of any State
or Territory recognizes it, its broad egis
will be extended over it; but it is pow
erless to establish; and whatever may be
the sentiments of the North as to the ex-
tension of slavery, l am proud and happy
to believe that majority there are will
ling and ready to do all that may become
them to preserve and enforce the consti-
tutional guarantees which, as slavehold-
ers, we claim at their hands. Upon what
principle is it said that the constitution
of the United-States authorizes and estab-
fishes slavery in its Territories. 1t is,
believe, always placed upon the ground
that the Territories are the common prop
erty of the whole Union, purchased in
some instances with the common blood,
and sometimes with the common treasure
of all, and that it cannot be so governed
as to exclude any interest therefrom.-
There seems to be some plausibility in
this argument. Let us examine it. II
it is true at all, it ought to apply to all
the common domain, and Congress has no
right SO to dispose of it as to make it in
accessible to any great interest IN the
country.
But what is the fact upon this subject.
The government owns millions of acres
of land in precisely this category, which
lies within the limits of States which the
STAKEHOLDER with his slave property is as
much excluded as he is from the soil of
England. No man from any quarter OF
the Union complains that the public
lands lying within the State of Illinois
are precluded from slave settlement; and
yet upon the principle contended for, the
public domain in that State belongs as
much to the southern as to the northern
man, and ought to be as free to settlement
by him with his property as to any citi-
zen of the United States. The true prin-
ciple, sir, l conceive to be this: the pub
lie land as property, wherever it lies, be-
longs to the general government, and is
the common property of all, to be used,
enjoyed, and appropriated in subordina-
ton to the municipal law which prevails
over it. In the State of Illinois this mu-
nieipal law making power resides in the
State government; in the Territories il
resides in the general government; in
both it is supreme, and is always to be
distinguished from the ownership of the
soil. 1t makes no difference that the su-
preme municipal power and the owner
ship of the soil is lodged in The same in
dividual, as is the case in the Territories.
They are essentially distinct, and must
forever remain SO. The one relates to
property, the other to individuals, and the
one is subordinate to, and under the con-
troll of, the other.
There is another view of this matter
which think quite conclusive. Slavery
by the decision of the Supreme Court oI
the United States, is a municipal law. II
is dependent for its existence upon the
law of the particular place, which law is
not merely declaratory of natural right,
but is supposed to be enacted with refer
ence to the interests of those to be affect
ed by it. Now, those who say that the
constitution of the United States will car
ry slavery into any territory, upon the
ground that the territory iscommon prop
ierty, must further contend, for the same
reasons, that Congress has no right tc
abolish it therein; because, if they have
the right, they might commit that injus-
tice upon the South, which southern gen
tlemen say the Constitution protects them
from. We then have this melancholy
dilemma in which the people of the Ter
ritories will be placed They have ,
municipal law, which ought to have ref
erence alone to the happiness and the in
terests of those to be governed by it, fixed
upon them, without their consent, ant
absolutely irrepealabie BY any power OF
earth. no matter what exigency NIGH
arise to demand it. This, | submit, is {
rednetio ed absurdum No principle o
free government which places any people
in such a dilemma can be recognized.
If the proposition Just stated be cor
rect, It's converse also must be true; AMI
gentlemen who admit that Congress ha
, the right to hgislase upon the subject o
slavery in the Territories, are eompel!e;
to abandon the position that the consti
tuition, f'roprio uiyore, would carry tha
institution and establish it there.
But, SIR, even If the constitution of tn
United States would establish slavery II
the Territories, should like to call tn
attention of those gentlemen who thin
that Congress has the right to legisla.
! upon the subject of that proyiso, com