Kenosha tribune and telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1855-1855, 1855-01-25

ted States, or none Of these States are ConstI'
tutionaly in the Union and therefore we have no.
United States The factthen that Slavery may ex
st in State under the Constitution with which
It presents itself Cor admission ntothe Union, is
not sufficient reason for Congress to refuse such
State admission into the Union. The evil of ad :
hitting Slave State. into the Union, list be RENE.
died in another way, viz: by /" LegsIating upon
the subject in Territories or the United States .
and preventing by such Legislation Slavery or
Slave interest gaining the ascendancy in those
Territories at the time they become States. Has
Congress the right then to Legislate upon the
subject Of Slavery in the Territories ofthe United
States 7 Precedcnts answer yes, and by those
precedents let Congress be bound until the high
est judicial tribunal known 20 this Government
shall declare, in legal manner that those prec-
edents are unconstitutional. OF these precedents
the first in order oftime anc perhaps Importance,
was that Of the ordinance of 1857, which hns
been +" the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by
night" TO western emigration. The next exor-
else Of this sight was in 1920, in the exclusion o.
Slavery from all that Territory, North of SO, deg.
and 80 min. N l.. and west of the State OF Mis-.
souri,, The third time was in 1923 by treaty.
with the Cherokee indians by virtue Of which ] 2
thousand square miles OF 81 ave Territory was dcd
cated to freedom. The next was in Ie45 ex
cuding Slavery from, that portion Of Texas North
Of SO, 30" The last and final was the prohibi-
ton clause in the "Oregon Bill.'' These with 9TH
or acts Of Legislation form strong chain Of pre-.
cedents, showing thai Congress has sxercfsed the
right Of Legisa ting upon the subject of Slavery
III the Territories 0. the United States which il
would be hard to break. The Constitutionality
Of this sort of Legislation first questioned in
1890 but has never been authortatively SO tied by
the proper Constitutional tribunal !; and until il
De thus settled, lam in favorof the exercise of the
precedent, and for the exclusion of slavery from
every inch ofths territory of the Uuitsd States
II slaveryis excluded from the Territories, fvee
States will unquestienably come into the Union
from those Territories M
The next question: *, should the Fugitive Slave
Law Of 1850 beis pcaIed7 Whatever may be my
opinion upon the unconstitu tonalily ofsome OF the
provisions Of that act LIDO not at thi. time nte I'D
entering upon discussion OF its constitutonali-
ty. BE it constitutional in whole or ia part am
nevertheless in favor Of modification or repeal
of that act, for the following reason. No law
be wise or beneficially enforced that does not
meet an approving response in the public senti-
ment Of that community for which the law was
made. The Fugitive Slave Law was made for
the Northern free States not for the Southern
Slave States, for them no impedimcut to recap
turing their Fugitives has over existed. Now there
can be bu. little doubt that the Fugitive Slnye
Law Of 1851 is regarded at the North az yelative
OF the principles of civil liberty. and private chris
tian obligation, and that no blessing Of heaven or
benedctIon of man rests in its provisions and
while there are many wise and good men who
believe it to be Constitutional, yet morally they
give it no approval. Hence the parade of mill
tary force in time Of peace--the increase OF the
civil exc cutive indictments, Bail Bonds, rescues,
party strife. new organizations, and b.oodshed,
breaking the peace of civil society and cndan
gering the very existence Of our form of Govern
ment. Aud however much we may all deprecate
an open violation of any law, yat we can but ac-
knowledge that such law has no foundation in
the popular sentiment and should Their, fore be
either modified or repeated sa+
Lw. WEBSTER.