Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1857-07-30
SPEECH
OF
ST. iTGIl ThIIiBILL.
1C NCLUUcD.l


no; necessarily follow that denial of citi-
zenship is a denial of those rights! The idea
that a negro cannot sue in United States
| Court, bee use 10 sIi2w him to 20 so would
necesss.ly cen. in him all the rights
fsseiaf and ro!iiicaf'y OF the white mar,
1 Ebsu women and children and even Cor
20 -a,ions enjoy lha, privilege without any
such Consequences following, is 10 my vie"
absurd; and yet this is the only reason given
| for the extraordinary decision that negro
cannot sue in Federal Court. This how
ever has been decided by the sectional ma
iority Of the Court and IN that case it is the
law, though rust il will never be repeated
in another. Having disposed Of the case by
deciding that the Court had no jurisdiction
10 act upon it. Judge Tanet next proceets
20 INQUIRE into the COnstitutioEalty OF the
Missouri Compromise. and The power OF
Congress to acquire and govern the Terri
tories.
He says:
sThe power TO acquire necessarily carries
with il the power TO preserve and apply to
the purposes for which it was acquired. The
form of the government to be established
necessarily rested in the discretion of Con-
press,' acting within the scope OF Its consti-
tutional authority. st was their duty to es
tablIsh the one that would be best suited for
the protection and security of the citizens
of the United States and other inha5itants
" ho might be authorized TO take up their
ahode there. What is the best
form must always depend on The condition
of the Territory at the time and the choice
OF the mode must depend upon the exercise
of Discretionary power by Congress, ,actiRg
within the scope ot its constitutional author
ity. It was acquired by the
exercise OF this discretion. and it must be
held and governed in like manner until it is
fitted ,o be State
This psrt of The opinion is very good Re-
publican ductrine, but it is utterly incons:s-
tent with the great pr nciple of popular
severe ;gnty aud self government of which
we have heard so much. In smother part
of the opinion the Judge aband0ns the sound
doctrine he had previously enunciared, and
5nnuunces it as the opinion o. the Court
that 'the right of property in slave is dis
tincty and expressly affirmed ia the Consti-
tut on,' and that every citizen has a right
20 take with him into the Territory any ar
tic.e of property which the Constitution of
the United States recognized as property,
and Congress has no pnwer to deprive per-
son Of this right, nor could it authorize a
Territorial Government 10 exercise it. Alas!
a.,J
in Territory, it j. not equal ID allowing
the Terri'orialsLegislu,ure power to protect
the people against the introduction Of Negro
Slavery. Whatever o;her rights of selfg0v-
ernment the people of the Territory of Kan
sas may have, the right TO keep Slavery out
is not one of them, according to his opin-
ion Still. there are those who insist tha:
" hile the right TO hold slaves continues in
Territory land can not be divssted or alien
ated, it SIS barren and worthless right, un-
less sustained, protected and enforced BY
appropriate police regulations and local legis
lation, prescribing adequate remedies for
its violation. These regulations and rene
dies must necessarily depend entirely upon
the will and wishes of the people of the Ter
riory, as they can only be prescribed by
the local Legislatures. Hence, the great
principle of popular sovereignty and self
government is sustained and firmly estab-
l:shed by this decision According to this
argument, self government consists in no:
being compel ed TO pass police laws for the
government OF negro slaves whose preseBce
there is no power TO prohibit; or, rather, the
decis on that people have no power 10 eX-
! tnguish Slavery, establishes the great prin.
ciple OF theii sovereignty and self-govern-
ment! What glorious principle this las
thus expounded! What an inestimable priv
iege to allow people to have negro slaves
introduced into their midst. without compel
ling them to pass police laws for their gov
ernment. A precious right, indeed, to be
allowed to permit negro slaves to run at
large, uncontrolled by local legislation!
And to this has the great principle Of popular
soue, eigntg and self government come at last,
according to one of the mid-wives who first
brought forth this political monstrosity, as
applicable to Territory.
Judge Taney, in his opinion. says that
the Constitution 'mskes il the duty of the
Government to protect it'-slave property;
but the lesser lights of the seli-styied Democ-
racy, who indnrSe the opinion and are great
stickiers for performing all their consttu-
tiona! obig5tons,and particularly in regard
TO slaves. say t1at this prorec. ion depends |
upon the Will OF the people O, the Territor-
les, ac,ing through their Territorial Lagisla-
ture. Here is direct intimafon that the |
people of aTerTiiory have the right TO disre-
gard their constitutional obligations, and |
make TIE right TO hold slaves "a barren and |
worthless right wiSout local protection
Where are the Union-savers, that they Dc |
not cry aloud at the PRONUNCIATION of such |
heresy as this! Why the attempt to let
loose negro slave, few years ago, in the |
| city of Boston, came near dissoivirg the |
| Unipn, according to these self-same political
doctors, who wouid now let loose all the |
negro slaves III a w hoe Terri urv. leaving
Their master tut "a barren and lrortiLess right
i to them.
For my part, if comp. lied TO have negr
slaves in the community in winch live. |
should greatly prefer haviTg proper police |
regulations tor their government ;and ques
ton if slaveho' 3rrs will thank one of their |
co-laborers for intimaiing that they are not
entitled 10 such protection.
The most monstrous proposition put forth
| by the sectional maturity in this opinion, is
that hich asserts that the right of prop
erty in slave is distinctly and expressly
affirmed in the Constitution No such
clause can be found in that instrument. The
word slave is noI in the Constitution. nor
is there any provision in it,exPress or other
wise, affirming property in man. The mos
which can be said is. that the Constitution,
does not prevent persons being held to SER
vice or labor in State, under the laws
thereof But for this clause. it would be
entirely competent for each State into
which person owing service in another
should escape, to discharge him therefrom,
L., t,,T ko L