Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1856-09-25
Slavery In Pennsylvania.

lcSl hulCH IhuoI lHcflIdDiy iedu W IcSuitS Uu
little anticipated, and which appear to be but
little considered. 1t is favorite argument
with members of that party to ask Has moi
the STAKEHOLDER as much right to carry his pro
perty (slayes) to the Territories as the North
ern man has to carry his horses and cattle
there 7" This is question frequently asked
in argument, even by mechanics and laboring
men, and indeed there is much specious plausi-
bility in it. How little do they dream of the
calamitous results to themselves which the ad-
mission of such doctrine must entail If this
position be correct, the right demanded must
either be derived from the constitution direct
ly or by construction, as claimed by the slave
holders themselves, or it is moral right which
is not denied by the constitution Now, if we
admit the shareholders constitutional right tc
carry his slave property to the Territories, and
| to hold them there until such time as the Ter
ritOry be admitted as State, we grant every
inch of the territorial soil of the Union for
slave States, irretrievably for there being no
particular constitutional guarantee of the right
claimed, it must be admitted as constructive
right derived from the equality of property,
and any attempt to pass law by Territory
when asking admission as a State, infringing
the right of property, would be demonstrations
| al. The constitution prohibits any such legis-
latiou by the States. Hence every new State
would Of necessity be slave State, and pow
erleSS to protect itself against slavery. But
| the constitution guarantees equality of proper
ty and of rights to all the States, and hence if
new State may not pass a law prohibiting
| slavery, any such Law in an old State must al
so be unconstitutional null and void and sa-
very may exist by the constitutional equality
OF property on every inch of soil covered by
the flag of the Union. The Virginia slavehol-
der can bring his human chattels to Philadel-
phia and sell them in front of Independence
Hall, if this principle be correct, in defiance of
any local or State law. The proprietors of our
manufactures, mines or farms, could discharge
their free white laborers and operatives and
put black slaves in their places and the white
working classes of Pennsylvania and New Jer-
sey would be reduced to level with the free
white working classes of the South. Men would
no longer be allowed to speak or write against
slavery, or the right of shareholders to do as
they pleased, for slavery exacts the same ser
Witty wherever it exists.
Let us look at the position, that the slave
holder has or should have the moral right to
carry his slaves into the Territories, as much
so as the Northern man has to carry his hors-
es and cattle thither. This position, too is
based on the equal rights of property. If it
is contended that the STAKEHOLDER should be al
lowed to take bis slaves to the Territories, and
hold them there till such Territories might be
ready to be admitted as States, then, majori-
ty of the people being non-slavehoderS. could
pass q law prohibiting slavery in the new
State Now, if the Shareholder should have
}bo =, 4
and cultivate the soil while in the territorial
condition, by what principle Of right or justice
could majority of the people force him tn pull
up stakes, sell out and leave or lose his pro-
perty when such Territory came to be State
Would it not be absurd TO call that right or
just To carry out this principle, should not
the Southern STAKEHOLDER have as much right
TO bring his property (slaves) to Pennsylvania,
New Jersey or any other free State as the
Northern man has to carry his horses and cat
tie to Virginia or any other slave State And
TO carry it little further-should not the first
be allowed the same privilege to bny and sell
his negro property at the North as the latter
has to sell his horses aud cattle at the South
Does the subject need any further illustration
If the common right of property is to be ap-
piled TO slaves, the owner of such property
should be allowed to hold and enjoy and buy
and sell such property wherever the flag of the
Union waves, and We should go to war and
compel other nations to recognize it as they
recognize other property. When the position
is once admitted, the result will follow, as sure
ly as night succeeds the setting of the sun
Such is the principle for which the Shamucrat=
ic party is contendng-frst preached in this
State by Senator Brodhead some two years
since, when he cpntended for the constitution
al right of shareholders to carrt their slaves to
the Territories Of the United States and hold
them there
But in connection with the re-establishnent
of slavery in Pennsylvania there is another
case, clearer and more fcarfully near even than
the one we have Just been considering 1t will
be remembered that during the last session of
our State Legislature Il petition was presented
from citizens of I.uzerHe county, asking for the
passage of law 10 permit shareholders to pass
through the State with their slaves and to en-
able them TO hold them here for limited time
This petition was referred to q committee, con-
Sisting of a majority Of Shamocrats who the
majority reported that no necessity existed
for the passage Of such law-as the right
prayed for was already guaranteed by the con-
stitution. This report was received as the
sense of the House of Representatives. the
Shamocratic members favoring it with but one
OF two exceptions
Now, as there is no express constitutional
grant such as is here conceded, il must be the
right by implication as applied to property
And as We have before shown, If the conStltu-
tional right of property applies TO slaves, then,
indeed, may the STAKEHOLDER not only pass
through the State with his property (slares)
or hold them here for limited time, but he
may hold them here for all time. Where can
n constitutional limitation be drawn There
is none And any State law preventing the
buying or sale of such property is without ef
E L. L e