The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-01-29

| to follow, but with unequal STEP" that the
Territories belong, not to the United States
but to the seceraI State2-that sin the States
sEvERALLY, reside the dominion and sovereignty
| over emf Calhoun's Works, vol. a, p. 497.
| That was the only position by which that great
man could make plausible his objection to the
| Slavery inhibition by Congress. He held that
the Territories were the common property of the
several States, held Jointly for their common
use, and therefore he claimed that it was tnjust
and unequal that "any portion of the partners
outnumbering another portion should Gust them
of this common property of theirs" or prescribe
them from emigrating thther with their slave
property. He did not question the power OF
Congress to govern the Territories, as the trus-
tee of the States, and for their benefit, but de.
MED that under the Constitution Slavery could
be prohibited therein. If the States are ten
ants in common in the Territories-if they be
the partners in this property-how can one
portion of these partners outnumber another
portion, and GUST them Surely not by legis-
lation, for they do not legislste as States over
the Territories. How then ? By entering the
Territory, and ousting their copartners by
force, or by acts of usurpation. That, sir, has
been done already, not by the non-slaveholdng
partners, but by the slaveholding partners; and
that is the inevitable result of Mr.. Calhoun's
proposition, adopted by the President, that the
Territories are under the dominion and sover-
eighty of the States, severally. That is the
result of this constitutional equality of each
and all of the States of the Union, as States"
asserted by the President, for the government
Of Kansas, instead of the sovereignty of the
nation. This attempt to secure equality to the
States, as such, within the Territories, cannot
be effected. No legislation can secure it. 1t
is impossible, in the nature Of things. The
slaveholding States assert that men are prop
erty the non-slaveholding States assert that
men are not property, and cannot and shall
not be made property! Georgia, by her Con-
sttution, declares that the Legislature shall
have no power to pass laws for the emapcipa
ton of slaves, without the previous consent of
each of their respective owners. Ohio, by her
Constitution, declares that there shall be no
Slavery, except in punishment of crime, upon
due conviction. If the domestic institutions of
the several States are to obtain in the Terrific
ries, as the President asserts, how can they CO.
exist there, when they thus conflict? You
might as well expect two separate and distinct
substances to occupy the same place at the
same time, or life and death to coexst at the
moment in the same body.
Sir, this proposition of State equality in the
Territories is mere absurdity, except upon
the hypothesis that the Territories shall be par
tltOneQ. IarIlilOu WOulu NC ID compromise
and when the South assumed this position, her
great leader Mr.. Calhoun told US, Let us
be done with compromises let US go back and
stand upon the Constitutional Calhoun's
Works, vol. 4, p. 347.) l agree to that-the
North agrees to that no more compromises
we stand upon the Constitution. Then, sir,
there is to be no partition of these Terrific
ries-no superintendent of one part as slave
Territory, and another part as free Territory.
This being so, say again, the equal dominion
of the States, Gas States" within the Terrific
ries, is impossible. The privilege to hold slaves
in the Territories for a short time, until Ter
ritorial statute or Constitution excluding it
shall have been adopted, will not secure to the
States equality, in the sense used by the Presi-
dent 1t would not meet the demands of the
South to permit them to 60 into the Territories
with their slaves tomorrow, to be driven back
and ousted by superior numbers the next month
or the next year. To make good this demand,
/ say to gentlemen, you must, you will, take
another step and that is, to assert your right
to hold slaves within the Territories, after as
we'll as before their erection into States. This
necessarily results, If within the Territories the
equality of each Of the States, as States, is to
be maintained.
Why, sir, we were told but day or two ago,
by the gentleman from South Carolina Mr..
ORR, that Territorial statutes were absolutely
necessary to protect slave property within The
Territories. Enactments to that end have al
ready been made in Kansas by usurpers. Re-
peal these enactments, as / trust you will re-
peal them, and what sanction or protection
then have you for slaves in Kansas? None,
sir, none. You have crimes act for the pun
ishment of murder, manning, robbery, larceny,
&C., when committed in any place under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States &c.
This act, with its penalties by its own terms,
as well as by your organic law, is in full force
in Kansas; but it furnishes no protection to
Slavery or slave property there If any person
should steal slave within that Territory, held
by another as his property, he could not be pun
ished under that statute. If slave should
there resist his masters authority over his per-
son, and take his masters life in defence of bis
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 a slave in Kansas, or MUIR
der for slave to resist the assault of his MASTER
and take his life in defence of his liberty? Sim
ply because larceny can only be committed of
property; and by the Constitution of our COM
mon country MEN are not PROPERTY, and cannot
be made property, and have the right to defend
their personal liberty, even to the infction of
death! At common law, larceny can only be
committed of property; and it is not murder
to kill another in defence of your person or
liberty. Our penal statute uses the terms, "lar-
ceny and murder" ouly in the sense of the
common law.
That men are not property, under the Consti.
tuition, has been declared from the Supreme
Bench. In the case of Groves ct al. Us. Slaugh-
ter, (l5 Peters, p. 500 Justice Mclean, speak
ing of slaves, SAYS, "The character of prOperty
is given them by the local law" and that "the
Constitution acts upon slaves as persons, and
not as property" 1t needs no opinion of that
disting uished man and eminent jurist to estab-
lish 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 property within
Ohio, notwithstanding her constitutional pro-
hibition. 1t has been ruled that, if the
owner bring his slave within that State,
the slave is free. If the Constitution would
protect slave property in Ohio, it would protect
it in Kansas. The Constitution protects it in
neither; and hence it follows that it can be
protected only by local law. The gentleman
from South Carolina Mr.. ORR was right,
therefore, in saying that, without Territorial
laws to protect it, slave property could not be
held in the Territories. This concession, sir,
while it is manifestly true, is fatal to the Pres
dents assertion of the constitutional and i'm
prescriptibe right of each and all of the
States, as States, to hold slaves in the Terrific.
ries.
The Presidents assertion "of the imprescript-
ible right Of equality Of the several States" is
without meaning, if it does not mean that the
several States have extra-territorial power,
throughout the national domain, to enforce and
maintain property in slaves. What else could
he mean by saving that the restriction of the
act of 1920 violated "the Understandable riaht