The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-06-12


legal power To do this cannot be questioned
and if any poor wanderer is yet cropping his way
by the Will-o' -th wisp of the Nicholson letter,
commend him to the argument of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Mr.. Richie, or to that Of
my colleague, Mr.. STANTON
COMPLAINT FIRST-RIGHTS OF THE
SOUTH INVADED.
Mr.. Chairman, But, this is claimed to be a
sectional measure and complaint is made that
by it the ights and interests of the South would
be invaded IL so, the complaint is just, and
we should desist for we are no sectionalists.
But pray tell me who constitute 4" the South p
Of course, in this connection you do not count
your slaves; can it be claimed that the rights
and interests ofyour non-slaveholders would be
violated by such non-extension. The more in
dustrious and intelligent of them have flown and
flying from the effects of Slavery. My coun-
Try is filled with them; and it is because they
would protect their "rights and interests" and
their own equality, that they would escape the
influence Of Slavery. Though those remaining
with You are more than nine-tenths of your
white population, yet they, | suppose, are not
"tl4e South" "The South" then, consists of its
shareholders and what interests, pray, of slave
holder. leoparded by Slavery restriction I?
Clearly they not deprived of the proceeds of
the labor Of their slaves. given number of
hands will produce just much cotton or sugar
or tobacco, whether Kansas or New Mexico be
free slave and its market price will be just as
high. Indeed, the consumer of slave labor is
rather interested in the restriction of Slavery, for
with every expansion the price of the laborer, and
consequent cost of production is increased The
only ones then, interested those who have
slaves TO sell; and they, it seems, are the South"
Let il, then, be understood, that when the rights
and interests of the South are spoken of you
mean the rights and interests of those who
men and women for the SHAMELESS The time
was when I" the South had another sense, and
her would have blushed TO own her COM
plete Identification with human traffic. And if ii
has come this, God forbid that should show
any respect for such "rights,' for such "inter-
ests"
COMPLAINT SECOND-INEQUALITY.
But accused of denying the equality of
the citizens of the States aud all the appeals
denanciations, and threats of treason which fall
thick upon u.s. based upon the accusation.
The assumption is simply this-that if the laws
of the Territories shall not permit the citizens of
slaveholding States, who at home have held per-
sons in bondage, from thus holding them in the
Territories, then they denied perfect equal
ity with citizens of the free States or, in other
words, if Congress shall refuse to permit the es-
Establishment of the local laws of the slave States
IN all the Territories, it thus refuses to protect
the equal rights of the emigrating citizens of
those States
Now, to this complaint it is enough to say
/. No personal privilege is denied to emf
grant from a slave State, which is not also de-
MED to emigrants from the free States hence
there is no inequality.
2. So far as law is concerned, the very demand
is claim for superiority, and not equality. The
extension Of the law of Slavery would subvert
IS opposite, and give it a superiority under pre-
tence of equality; for the law that enslaves a
man, and the law which protects him, cannot CO.
exist.
Dlos,, IL a. 81,
Territory must be made TO conform to the laws
of the several States at least in relation to "per-
sons held to service" Now, in view of the fact
that there IS great disagreement between the
laws of the States upon this subject, some allow
ing abject servitude, and others permitting only
the natural and eommon-law subsection, and
that modified, of wives, minors and apprentices
the absurdity of the complaint clearly appears.
Either the laws of all the States must be in force
In the Territory, which is impossible, the laws
of some particular State, or laws independent Of
those of any State. Or, the complaint assumes,
4. That each emigrant should carry his own
State laws with him. Is that possible? Have
laws any extra-territorial force? Law is a
municipal regulation /; does it extend beyond the
naunicipialn7 Is Territory like the high seas,
where all nations have equal rights, and the flag
OF every nation carries upon its own ship the
nations jurisdiction Are the rights of the
jewellers of each hamlet TO be decided by the
man from Georgia Mr.. WARSER,1 if | under
stand him, assumes this doctrine. After citing
the case OF Spanish vessel laden with slaves
which was seized by British cruiser, and the
seizure held illegal, he says:
THE slaves taken by the Spaniard i 10 the
werr seized upoa the great highway Of nson upon hs
empire Of the oo1'non ground where the Span
lasd had much right 10 he with ms properly Eng
iskman. aud the principle would have spilled equal
force If the slaves had been upon territory
nc:pe applicable To the common ienory ofhe Union
which Is common ground being the joint property all
the States, where Tie Georgia has much
night TO be with has slave property the citizen of Ohio
has To be there with his properyneiiher violating any
IA" OF hat territory by INTO with their
The character of this reasoning will appear,
when We consider that the high seas belong TO
no nation, federation, conederacy, and that
they are, and can be, subject to no municipal
code, but the law Of each nation follows its own
ships wherever they go. Slavery and the slave
trade were then held TO be lawful in SPAIN and
therefore, slaves on board Spanish ships could
not be discharged by English law The ship was
still Spanish, its domcile was Spain, and it was
subject only TO SPANS law. But each Territory
must have municipal laws of its own, and they
are uniform in every part of the Territory Can
there be one law for the farm of the emigrant
from Georgia, and another for the farm of the
emigrant from Ohio? And what if the two emf
grants own and occupy a farm in common. ber-
haps lnternarry, the law of which State shall
govern! Neither is it true that the Territories
are the common property of the States, as such
They belong to the Federation as a unit and
each citizen owes allegiance to the Federal Gov
ernment alone. They bear no analogy to a coun
try belonging to two independent sovereignties.
as the gentleman has supposed; and even if they
did, II would not matter for, If Great Britain
and Spain held common territory, it must have
municipal laws and the relations of persons and
the rights of property would be controlled by its
own municipal laws, and not by those of the
joint sovereigns.
COMPLAINT THIRD-INVIDIOUS DIS
TlNCTIONS.
But complaint also is made that, by prohibit
ing Slavery in the Territories, Congress would
make improper and invidious distinctions against
the laws of the slave States. This complaint is
also based upon the unfounded assumption that
the law of Slayery-if | may be pardoned the
seeming paradox of calling that law which is but
the denial to its victims of the laws protection
from its CHARACTER, INFLUENCE, and ORIGIN, has
equal claims TO the favor of the Federal Govern
ment with the principles of the common law, or
the law of Freedom. If this be true, then / adj
NIT that the complaints of the Slavery extern
sionists are well founded, or at least that there
should be division of the Territories. Slavery,
therefore, uSeJ rs put IA issue; gentlemen compel
us to test its claims.
CHARACTER OF SLAVERY.
By the character of Slavery refer not to the
cruelties or kndnesses of slave-masters but only
10 its distinguishing and essential legal features
and i'm doing this shall but briefly allude to a
few of them.
l. Slavery is hereditary. Because one has sue
ceeded in ensiaying the parent therefore he has
the perfect right to enslave his posterity, and
according to the degrading and demoralizing rule
of partus ssguitW rentrem. Like the OK and the