The Kansas herald of freedom., 1856-05-10

{ i =
what the Federal Governments is to do if
as happens 10 be the case, certain North.
Iern and Southern institutions, are In.
compatible? The Institution of slavery
is no more an institution than the insti.
tuition of free press. The one is Sc
cured by every State constitution South,
| the. other is secured by every State con-
stitution North. The one is valued no
more by Southern men, than the other is
by Northern men. But the two are In
compatible. All experience has proved
it. The statute book of every Southern
State proves it. There is not slave
holding State in this Union in which
penal laws do not exist against printing
and publishing sentiments calculated to
produce disaffection among its slaves, and
all anti slavery sentiments are so caicula-
ted. The fact that restriction upon the
freedom of the press and of speech is
necessary to the safety OF slavery, is SO
distinctly recognized, that one of the
first acts of. the late pro-slayery spurious
legislature of Kansas was to make an en-
actment making it a felony punishable
with imprisonment for not less than two
years to stassert or maintain, by speaking
or writing that persons have not the right
to hold slaves in the Territory and a
felony, punishable with imprisonment
for not less than FIVE years, to sprint,
write, introduce into. or publish. or cir
culate any book, paper, pamphlet, mag
azine, hand d-bill, or circular containing
any statements, arguments, opinion, sem
timent, doctrine, advice, or inuendo cal
| culated to produce disorderly, danger
GUS, or rebellious disaffection among the
slaves in the Territory" Now if Vir-
fginia, or South Carolina, or Arkansas
chooses to have such laws, very well;
they do not touch US, and it is none of
our business-no more our business than
the restrictive press laws of France or
Naples But when the attempt is made
to carry such laws, or an institution re-
quiring such laws, into the common ter
ritory Of the United States. in which the
citizens of the State of New York have
just as much interest as the citizens of
Virginia, or South Carolina, or Arkansas
it then becomes our business and we
can tell the Richmond Enquirer that
citizens of this State, when they emigrate
to Kansas, have no more disposition to
give up their institution of free press
than citizens of Virginia, have to give
up their institution of .'nigger" not
free. The capacities and utilities of a
free press are here rated quite as high,
as any Virginian can rate the capacities
and utilities of a i'niggcr," oren Enough
he takes the Africansinventory and ap-
praisal of his present dignifed Governor,
in his recent public letter, to-wit: "wool,
fat nose, odor, ebo-shin, and gizzard,
foot and ALL" Well, now, we ask the
Richmond paper-who is to yield? The
Virginian takes his institution to the COM
mon territory, the New Yorker his
Which is TO be given up? the New Yor-
ker's sacred and inyiolable right TO free
inquiry and free utterance, for which
MILTON argued and SIDNEY died, or the
Virginian's sacred and inviolable right
20 "wool, fiat-nose, odor, ebo-shin, and
gizzard, foot and all" for which R1rcuIE
argues and Wise is prepared to die. The
two cannot staLd together. All admit
that. Which is to be dropped? Who
is to decide? Not the squatters. Both
the Virginian and the New Yorker, both
the Richmond Enquirer and ourselves,
agree about that. The squatters, a
mere handful perhaps, have no right to
sequestrate and control Virginia's inter-
est and New York's interest in that COM
mon territory. Well, then, if not the
squatters, who else can decide but Con-
gress, to which the Constitution gives
the power to ''make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the Territory OF
other propsrty of the United States" II
Congress is to decide, how shall it de-
eide? Is Congress- bound to decide for
the Virginian's institution, and not fol
the New Yorker's? What binds it,
Any thing in tae Federal Constitution?
If so, what and where? There is moth.
ing. Congress in establishing "needful
rules and regulation" is left to its discre.
ton. The Virginian may demand pro-
tectiea, and so may the New Yorker, bu
both will get only just what Congress
sees fit to allow. To determine this
Congress must examine and consider
1t must compare the two institutions
free press. or '.nigger" we use th.
Virginian's phraseology) not free.
Why should your institution be soun ded NOR
! than ours,
Write them together, ours is as fair name;
Sound them, it doth become the month Is well;
Weigh them, it is as heavy; cor. .ure with them,
Freedom viii start spirit Is soon as slavery.
! Leave the thing to Congress. We art
contented with that. We always have
been content with it. The CompFomiss
division line, made by Congress gene
ration ago, was, in our opinion, eminent
| ly wise. Virginia thought differently
and joined in breaking it up. This &C
was q breach of faitn and most mis-
chievous, and We go for its reparation
Ii We can't get it, we shall yet be conten
to leave the whole matter 70 the plenarJ
discretion of this and future Congresses
Is the Virginian for such plenary discre.
i ton? If he IS, Why this clustering. ar
], rogant, insolsnt tones If he is no.. wha
; is lls for? Is hs for q compulsory option
i in hiss own favor? We agree with The
Richmond Enquirer. that it is well Z
i come TO an understanding on this mat
5 ter. The Missouri Compromise ono.
out of the question. the issue. ss We IN
dersiand it. will Be free press in tn
I'll Territories, or { to use the Virginia dia