The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-05-22
AN IMPORTANT OPINION.
From the Pittsburgh Gazette.


The circumstances which induced the publ
cation of the article alluded to, and which we
publish to-day, are these 1t will be recoleeted
that towards the close of the year lS47 our
armies had overrun Mexico, and it was expect
ed that treaty would be made to cede to us a
part OF that Empire, as indemnity for the ex-
penses of the war, and in satisfaction of our
claims against that Government. AS Slavery
had been abolished in Mexico, a most important
question arose, and was discussed, whether slaves
could not be taken into free territory under
the sanction of Congress. At that time, squatter
sovereignty had not been thought of The
"Wilmot Proyiso" had been discussed, but that
it could rot be passed as a general regulation
was evident to every one, AS President Polk
openly declared he would veto it. The efficacy
OF the Proviso is better understood since the re-
peal of the Missouri Compromise. Judge Nc
Lean, with other sagacious men, while not doubt
ing the power OF Congress to pass such a
measure, doubted the propriety of resting upon
a repealable resolution, such as the Proviso
would be, flor every one knows that what our
Congress sanctions by resolution as law another
Congress may rescind, when there was higher
and more etiectual barrier i'll the constitutional
doctrine of n total want of power in Congress
to institute Slavery in free territory.
To meet the crisis, aud secure the object de-
sired the communication above alluded to was
published anonymously by Judge Mclean in
the National InteAigencer. 1t created strong
feeling in the country at the time, and he was
assaled with the utmost bitterness in the Senate
of the United States, by Ii. s. Foote, Senator
from Mississippi, who represented the Southern
view Of the article. 1t will be perceived that it
is limited to a constitutional consideration of the
power of Congress over Slaveryin the Territories,
and the existence of 1t in the States. 1t takes
the ground that Slavery exists only by virtue of
the municipal law of \ State, and that it could
nowhere exist except by law.
This being the case, it would follow that
slaves taken into any place where Slavery was
not established by law, they could not be held
as slaves. Any one on a moments reflection
will be convinced of the soundness of this con-
clusion. Without the local law can a man be
made property? In the slave States, the local
sovereignty has made man property, which de-
scends to heirs, and which may be sold on ex-
ecution by creditors. No man is so blind as
not to see that this could not be where the law
did not specially authorize it. Slavery, then,
being limited to the range Of the law where it
is established, 1t cannot exist anywhere without
the authority of law. This is demonstrated in
the letter of Judge Mclean, who also shows
that Congress has no power to institute Slavery,
or, in other words, to establish it. There would
be no danger Of any one taking slaves into free
territory, where they are not property, and con-
sequently cannot be sold on execution or other
wise, nor descend to heirs. The law in a free
Territory makes no distinction as to personal
rights, between a white man and "a colored one
No one man can be subjected to the will of an
other, unless he is made subject to it by law.
Slavery in Kansas is there in violation of the
Constitution, and without warrant of law Justice,
or anything but the power and force of the
Slave Power, which has subjugated that Terri
tory.
Ii must be observed that the view taken by
Judge Mclean places the question of Slavery on
constitutional ground, and settles it upon the
principles for which the North contends, whilst
it does no injustice or violence to the South.