Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-02-07

| -
/ defense of his own liberty, think you the slave
could be held for murder under the national
statute? No, Sir Why would it not be larceny
under that statute to steal slave in Kansas; or
murder for slave 20 resist the assault Of his
master, and say him in defense Of his liberty
Simply because larceny can only be committed nl
property; md by the constitution Of our common
country thank God, MEN are not PROPERTY and
j cannot be made property and have the right to
defend their personal liberty even to the nfctou
I OF death At common law, larceny can only be
committed of property; and it is not murder to
kill another in defense of your person or liberty
Our penal statute uses the terms larceny" and
'murdor" only in the sense of the common law
! That men are not property under the Cunstitu-
tion has been declared from the Supreme Bench.
In the case Of Growers et. 0l as Slaughter Us
Peters, p. 507( Justice Mclean. speaking of slaves
says, THE character of property is given them by
4 the local law" pnd that the Constitution acts
upon slaves as persons aud not property" 1t
needS no opinion of that distinguished man and
eminent jurist to establish this If slaves were
property under the Constitution, it would follow
that they would continue property, wherever the
owner might take them within the Union and
hence he might hold his slaves as property within
Ohio notwithstanding her constitutional prohibit
ton. 1t has been ruled that, if the owner brings
his slave within that State. the slave is free. II
The Constitution would protect slave properly in
Ohio, it would protect it in Kansas. The Cor sti-
tuition protects it in neither and hence it follows
! that it can be protected only by local law The
gentleman from South Carolina MIR ORR was
right, therefore, IN saying that, without territorial
laws to protect it, slave property could not he held
! in the Territories. This concession. sir. while it
is maniestly true, is fatal to the Presidents asser
ton of the constitutional and mprescriptible right
of each and all OF the States, States, to hold
slaves in the Territories.
| The Presidents assertion 'of prescriptible
right of the several States, is without mean
ing if it does not mean that the several
States have extra territorial power, through
ous the national domain, to enforce aud maintain
property in slaves. What else could he mean hy
ying that the restriction Of the act Of $50 viola
ted "the imprescripube right ut equality ot the
several StatesY How did this restriction viniate
any right Of the Secerdt Siate unees they several
ly had the right traffic in slaves, and mold slaves
rs property within the Territories? There was
nothing restricted in it but Slavery within the Ter
rt0riesr There was nothing restricted in 1t but
Slavery within the Territory therein described.
But there is another passage in the message
before US, hoppuy expressed as to leave no doubt
OF the Presidents meaning. He says:
The several States of the Union are, hy force
of the Constitution, cHequal in domestic legisla
live power Congress cannot change law OF
domestic relation in the State OF Maine; no more
eau it in the State of Missouri. Any statute
which proposes to do this is mere nul'ity-i
takes away no rght-it cUniers none" "T,
repeal it will be only to remove inperectlOn from
The statutes, without affecting, either in the sense
of permission prohibition, the action "f Mt
81 ites ur their citizens. Still. when the nominal
restrictions Of MiS r0ture, already dead letter
IN law, was in terms repealed by The last
Congress- in Il claute OF the act organizing
the Territories Of Kansas and Nebraska, that
repeal WAS made the occasion Of q wide spread and
dangerous agitation"
Here is the assertion, plainly expressed, that the
a "A 81. l,,r l.,,t,
power, and that Congrrss can not prohibit Slavery
liza the Territories because such Il restriction, II
: allowed and enforced would lie n prohibition upo.
the action Of the States and change law OF
iome- tic relation within the States Are the sev
leral States by force of the Constitution. 'Coe
Iqupl in domestic Legislative power? And dne'
= ina, CO quail legislative power extend to the Ter
rituries?
! We have already seen that the six Nortb-W est
a ern States were not cOequal with the origlna
p States IN domestic legislative power; that the!
we're only permitted " form u constitution an'
d to come into the Union on the express condition
that Slavery, the domestic relation OF some ot tn
other States should he forever excluded from theI
territories that to-day those six States are IN th
. Union upon that condition, and cannot establish
= the domestic institution of Slavery therein Doe
this alleged coequal domestic Legislative power u
= the several states extend TO the several Terrific
- ries? The President manitestlv so concludes; els
a how could the Territorial prohibition OF Slavery
, if enforced, affect the action OF the States, o
a change a law of domestic relation therein ?
a the several States have this cOequa power owe
- the domestic in tituuns of the Territories, no net
essty exists for local legislation there to proteC
., the domestic relation Of chatsel Slavery. H.
II law of Georgia in that case, would follow th
~ slave property Of its citizens thther, and make
"a property there aud, for aught can see the peni
"a laws of Georgia would also operate there for tn
protection of that property.
- But it is useless to dwell upon proposition
~ - monstrous and absurd it has sanction in tt
4 Constitution or in reason. The extra territori
:. legislative power of every State is limited to |
= own citizens and subjects. That is the decision
- the Supreme Court in the great case of Wnrcest'
i. vs.. the State of Georgia. (6 Peters. 5l2 A pc
manent change of domicIl determines citize
: ship.
le | conclude therefore, that the Territories a
oe not under the dominion and sovereign
n of the States seceraLy; that the exclusi'
or dominion aud sovereignty over them is
H. the United States and can he exercised only
!" Congressional Enactment; and that all the ne
v States within the Territories can only he tormt
rt by and with the consent of the National Guver
& ment The people Of the Territories may form
70 State Constitution, bur unless it be approved
le Congress no State is oganiZed the Constitute
10 so fora ed is nullty and the inhabitants rema
es subject to Congressional legislation. They CT
I'd never become u State but pursuant to such cond
70 will is limited by moth ng but the Constitution
D. The Constitution is based upon tho equality of Il
es human race. In the words Of Washington. 1t
r completely free in its principles State form
if under the Constitution, and pursuant TO its sp
he it, mus. rest upon this great principle of equdit
Its primal object mast be to protect each hunt
hv being within its jurisdiction in the free and fl
y enjoyment of his natural rights. Mere polite
vs. vs. or Conventional rights subject to the control
,s the majority but the rights OF human nature b
TO- long to each member of the State and cannot
n. forfeited but by crime.
IN 1t necessarily follows that neither Slave sfatnt
: I? NOR Slave constitutions can be made operati
he within the Territories, without the sanction a.
", approval, express or implied oil congress
AZ Pres;dent himself comedies this the past legis
mis- ton and cotemporaneous history of the Consti
ell ton prove it, Disguise it as you may the qu'
's ton which shakes the Union to day is not whe
we er Congress may govern the Territories ogs I"
we Congress may govern themf The question
DID, whsther Congress sLall govern the Territories