Lewisburg chronicle. [volume] (Lewisburg, Pa.) 1850-1859, 1856-02-08

Of property mean that which is considered
property by universal law do not mean
that " which property only because it is held
as such under the laws Of particular
State, and which loses its character Of prop
erty so soon as it extends beyond the limits
of that State, except under certain Eeser-
vations covered by the Constitution Of tho
Unitel States. When speak of proper.
ty do not refer to that species. describe
that which is recognized as property by
universal laws of men, and not that which
is property only when it is made such by
local laws of limited sections Of the coun-
try. I have no disposition to disturb its
existence-no purpose to diminish or in
crease it there. 1 will acknowledge all its
rights there, accepting for that purpose the
charts established BY Southern statesmen;
but deny that it is such property as, in
dependent Of local law or Congressional
enactment, is protected BY the Constitution
in the Territories of the United States.
! 1 have nothing further to say on this
very nice and delicate question. Ibelieve
that the Constitution Of the United States
was intended to do justice to all sections
of the country-to the South equally with
the North am for that today; and I
adopt the language of my friend (Mr.
Richardson) who has always treated me
with distinguished courtesy in all discus.
sions on this subject, that we should do
Justice to the South as well as to tho
North In no speech or declaration that
has fallen from my lips, so far as l can
remember it, have ever expressed diff
ferent sentiment; but, sir, can not shut
out from my memory the great fact that
the Constitution of the United States il
an instrument Of Freedom, contemplated
as such by its trainers, and interpreted a,
such by all men of the South and the
North until within the last few years. 1t
is a chart of Freedom, established to SO.
cure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves
aud our posterity, giving liberty to the
States to do what they shall think to be
proper within their own localities, under
be right and Just, bat claiming no right
and conceding no right to them to carry
their own peculiar institutions beyond the
limitations conferred by the doctrine of
the sovereignty of States.
No, Sir! Tie Constitution fthe United
States is an instrument, not Of immediate,
but Of ultimate and snicegsdi Freedom. H
,ras so contemplated by tie great men ~ho
framed 1t, and the ,corid has so regarded
it. The national .aay, thar is ats symbol,
that makes the land ouer 'rtich it Rca.s, in
sehaterer quarter 9f the gio6e, so long as It
c0rers an Anaerican citizen, American ter
ritory, is tie banner of ultimate and uni
rersal L,beHy-tts ,rhite and red .folds SYM
Jols IF Revolrtionary TRIALS, Of tie crests Of
rictory, and the 6lood Of sacrifice. May
ITS STARRY UNION FOR EVER STAND AS
GOLDEN FIRES OF Cons PERMANENT
[Great applause. That is my answer to
that question.
Tue Clerk then read as follows:
THAT III the territory acquired from Mexi.
co and France (Including Kansas and Nebras-
ka) the Missouri Restriction was necessary to
make the territory free, because Slavery exiS-
A !
QUESTION, but that the Kansas and Nebraska
bill, which repeals that restriction-but neither
legISlateS Slavery into those Territories nor
excludes it thereirom, n his opinion-leaves
those Territories without either local or
constitutional law protecting Slavery; and
that therefore, the Kansas and Nebraska bill
promotes the formation of Slave States IN
Kansas and Nebraskal"
Mr. BANKS | did not see that ques-
tiOn, Mr. Clerk, until it was brought to
me BY page from the desk. 1t is but
repetition of the first iDterrogatory, with
the addition of statement Of fact. In
regard to that statement, will say that
it is doubted whether the institution Of
Slavery existed in these Territories at the
time they were acquired. Without going
into the question whether France, by the
decree Of 1874, abolished the institution
Of Slavery there, I will say that, if it were
necessary that the Congress of the United
States should interdict that institution in
those Territories in order to make them
free, think that Congress was right in
doing it. If it were necessary, in order
to give to the South the right to carry the
institution of Slavery there, that the in
terdict of 1920 should be removed, think
that the Congress of 1855 was wrong in
making that repeal; and can not, Sir,
but say, with the light that has come to
me upon this question, that the interdict
of 1920 forbade and abolished the insttu-
tion of Slavery, if it enlisted there; that
the repeal of that prohibition in 1858, in
asmuch as it allowed Slavery to 20 there
under certain possible circumstances, was
an act no. promotive of the formation Of
Free States That. Sir. IL nv answer to