The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1856-09-19

ter as citizen, and as II IS in his character OF a
citizen that he may perform any act which we
can perform, he may, like ourselves, choose his
home in any State or Territory. He must sub
! nit to the local law, whatever il may be, for
when be selects his abode he must be assumed
| TO accept all the consequences of the act. A
STAKEHOLDER entering any State or Territory NAV
bring his slaves with him-whether they will
lleman subject TO his service depends on the
law TO which he thus voluntarily subjects him
self. This is the risk which he must nctff.-
But it is hazard confined to the action Of the
people ofthe community into which he thus
enters, and does not extend beyond. II is a
submission to the sovereignty of the people
which is not confined to any one subject, bot
-extends 10 all matters of legislation.
A New Yorker, at home, may lawfully pass
one dollar bank notes. We cannot prevent his
coming into Pennsylvania, bot We can forbid
his putting these bank notes into circulation,
and any organized attempt in New York 10 sub
vert onr laws in this particular, OF 10 limit their
application would be reppIIrd and resented as
/ an insult 10 this commonwealth. II a man
comes into Pennsylvania his right Of property
are dependent on Pennsylvania law, except un-
der the special restraints of the Federal ConSti-
!
could make the law, We should have either the
despotism of dictation Of a single man, or the
anarchy of rules as various and discordant as the
men who make them. Do not these principles
apply everywhere would not these fatal con-
s1qurnces follow, from like causes, anywhere (?
Suppose the inhabitants Of Kansas were unan-
lmous in favor Oft the exclusion Of slaves, would
it not be monStrous for one immigrant 10 assume
Z & ft-Ei i L.. It.
in defiance of the lawfully expressed will OF
the rest. il would be INDUSTRIOUS, only, because
in derogation OF the rule that the majority gov
ern, for the erfent Of the majority does not de-
trrmine the application of the doctrine. If, on
the other hand, a majority Of the people declare
by law, that this or any other specirs of proper
~ shah be recognized and protected, can it be
maintained that a minority can at once annul
the will of the majority and destroy the rights
OF property by limiting according 10 their views
the application of the term
These principles were settled long ago, when
the blood of the Revolution baptized every A
nrfican into the family Of freemen. The
sword ofour soldiers crowned the people with
the supreme sovereignty. The chirf argument
for the Revolution was the onnipotencr ofthe
public voice, and by consequence the right of
the people TO make the laws under which they
1--we. Can those wto say that Congress may
make laws for Kansas, deny the power OF the
English Parliament Of 1916 to make laws for
the Colonies Where would those who seek
TO force laws on the Territories against their
will, have been found if hey had lived in the
DAYS of The Revolution and been called ON 10
resist laws forced on the Colonies against their
wilIl Would they have refused or obeyed
this British tyranls call? Would they have
been patriot wings or tory traitors
This sovereignty, IN which each citizen
shares, is a personal right older than the Consi-
tnlion and higher than The law which he car
Ties about with him wherever be goes within
he broad hounds Of our glorious Republic
which Is not lost by passing from one State 10
another nor limited by territorial lines. II is
our most precious birthrght-~wil be the rich
-st heritage Of our cbIdren-shal we abandon
it 10 the bidding of desperate band OF dISog-
ganiZers, or swrar never 10 surrender II but
with life itself?
EHber popular sovereignty IS true and saie,
or il is false ard dangerous. The whole struc-
ture Of our government assumes the former. and
he who denies it is no Republjcan-he who as
sprts by force is traitor. Why is it not 10 BE-
applied as well in Territories as in States
To say that the Missouri Compromise has de-
>royrd this right is 10 assume that Congress
may after the radical relations which connect
The citizen with The State, and that one Con-
gress may dvest at their pleasure the constitu-
tional powers Of all surrounding Representatives
of The people There is no such grant Of pow
er in the Constitution, and what is not found
there and is rot necessary, does not exist, be-
cause, bv the terms Of that Instrument, The
powers not delegated are reserved. To assume
that an act cannot b. repealed is to limit each
succeeding Congress al the pleasure Of all pre-
ceding Congresses, and thus gradually 70 diInin-
ish the legislative power until finally present
popular will would be wholly controlled b. The
sentiments Of former generations. Al laws
are compromises, but the great Compromisr is
the agreement to submit to the will Of the ma
ioritv. This is the only irrepealable law, for ii
is the human recognition of Gods truth Of mans
equarv-in organized Government equality
before the law.
If Congress may interfere 10 exclude slavery
they may with equal warrant Interfere 10 intro
duce it. And thus in either way, destroy Po-
Iitcal liberty by destroying popular sovereign
ty. If so we have a new species of slavery IN
troduced-the political slavery OF the white
man and new master cfeated--the Congress
Of the Union.
To assume hat unlimited control over inbab-
tanis Of Territories is conferred by The clause,
ssCongress shall have power TO dispose Of and
make all needful rules and regulations respec-
ting the Territory or other property belonging
to the United States" is TO coDound The dis
tincton between persons and things, and con-
vert citizens into cbatlels TO be "disposed of
at the pleasure of The Federal Government.