Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1856-06-12
Slavery Extension.

editorial which lately appeared in the Gazette,
concerning the power os Congress in the
Territories. As the article is written in a
calm and dispassionate manner, and is withal
a plausible and specious statement Of the
case on the side of the present Administra-
tion party, have concluded to throw out
one or two suggestions, which the author
appears either to have kept out of sight with
studiOus anxiety or tohave unwittingly over
looked. Charity would compel me TO con-
sider the latter as the probable cause.
In the first place, then, he demolishes
Judge STORY by way of introduction, and,
while dealing with that gentleman, triumph
antiy asks, Can Congress establish kingly,
hereditary, or monarchical government in
Kansasl Now. just here suffer me to inter-
rupt the Gazette. WIZ cannot Congress
establish monarchy in Kansas! Because
the Constitution guarantees to every State
a republican form of government. But there
is nO such express declaration in the Con-
stitution in regard to the prohibition of sla-
very. Congress is then not forbidden by the
Constitution from prohibiting slavery in the
Territories. If, then, the Constitution does
rot for bid Congress from prohibiting slavery,
where will the Editor find any authority
against the power of Congress in this res
pect.
Again, express power is giren by the Con-
stitution to Congress to make all needful
rules nj regulations r the Territories;
and | think it will be exceedingly difficult
for the Gazette to show that the prohibition
of slavery does not fall under the head of
"needful rules and regulations" especially
since he declares himself opposed to slavery,
(by-the-bye, this is a position which ali our
Northern Democrats feel called upon to take
whenever they undertake to justify Southern
institutions, can you, Mr. Editor, tell me the
causeD and would, under certain circum-
stances, vote against its adoption into any
community, &c.
But another step in the argument. Our
friend admits that the ultimate power of
the government is in the people; if this be
true, then the people of the United States
own the Territories, Gf they do not, pray
who doesD and if the people possess them,
it is absurd to say that they cannot govern
them as they please. To set apart one pOr-
ton for the Indians, another for forts and
arsenals donate some parts to Railroads, and
grant others to actual settlers, or any other
of the various uses to which the public lands
have been appropriated; these are all high
acts of ownership by Congress, as the de-
rository of the will of the people of the
country; and SO mus. be held the prohibit
tion of slavery,
If you deny to Congress the right 10 pro-
hibit slavery in the Territories, you are met
by two questions which cannot be satisfac-
torily answered.
Ist Where does Congress get any power
to prohibit any thing it may consider uu--
lawful. 1t will not DO to say that slavery is
not unlawful, for the United States have al
ready declared the slave trade so, and slave
holding might be so declared by the same
power.
ID. ii Congress cannot prevent the intro
duction of slavery into the Territories. who
can! And we are driven to the position that
the inhabitants of a Territory cannot be
freed from an institution which may happen
to be unpopular-a very anti-Democratic
doctrine, indeed.
Thus we see that the will of majority of
the citizens of the United States, expressed
through Congress, is the only way TO decide
any question relating to their welfare. A
powerless thing, indeed, does our Democratic
Editor and friend make of this General Gov
ernment. Grant but this, and you will soon
have persons claiming that Congress can
pass 10 laws of any kind which shall have
anv force in the Territories.
Having, as believe, shown the power
of Congress to prohibit slavery in the Ter
it follows OF necessity that it is the
duty of Congress to DO so; and the boasted
doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty is equiva-
lent no less than a gross neglect of duty and
an unjustifable desertiop of the response
bility resting upon the government. How
ever as the Gacetie appears to have waived
for the present the whole doctrine of Gen.
CAss upon the subject. let it pass.
The Gazette wishes to know if a citizen
of New York could not take his slaves to
Kansas. provided Slavery was acknowledged
IN all the states Of the Union. To this Is
answer not necessarily. If every state in
his Union were as full Of slaves as South
Carolina; the people Of this Union, would
till have the undoubted right and power to
prohibit slavery in the territories as before.
And now ,et US ask the Editor question.
suppose there were 70 slave states in the
Union, that every state had come to the con-
fusion, at which Capt. HEAToS has arrived,
hat slavery is an evil, and all had abolished
t. Now could the General Government,
revent the introduction Of this evil into
he territories, admitting that the citizens
rere unanimously in favor of it! And II
o, where would it get the power.
There are one or two points more IN the
rticle which | would like 10 notice especi-
Ily polvramy in Utah, but must close for