Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1857-02-05

That men are noe property uud'r hs con-
~stitution has been declared from the sspreme
Bench. In he case Of Groves ct al. vs., slsu.
ghtsr, Il4 Peers. p. SOL Justice Mclean,
speaking Of slaves says. The character Of
properly is given them BY the local law. and
that 4hs Constitution Gcls nPsn slaves as per
sons, and not a. property Hneeds no Opin-
ion ofthst distinguished man and eminsut ju-
risl 10 establish this. II slaves we're property
under fhe Constitution, it would follow fiat
they would continue property. wherever the
owner might take them within the Union. AHd
hence he might hold his slaves As property
sahin Ohio. notwithstanding her constitution
al prohibition. It haI been ruled that, if the
owner bring bis slave within fiat State, the
slave is free. If fhs Constitution would pro-
tsct slave property III Ohio, it would protectiI
in Kanzas. The Constitution P~rsteets it in
neither, and hence it follows that il can be
protected only by local law. The gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Dr. was right,
therefore, in saying that, without territorial
law to protect il. slave properly could NOT be
held in the Territories. This concession, sir,
while it is manIfsstly true, is fatal 10 the Pres
dents assertion Of the constitutional and impre-
scriptible right Of each and all Of the States,
as States, to hold slaves in The Territories.
The Presidents assertion " Of the impress
eriptble right Of equality Oftbs several States.'
is without. meaning if it does not mean that
the several States have extra-territorial power
throughout the national domain, IN enforce and
maintain property in slaves What else could
he mean By saying that the restriction of the act
of 1920 violated 1.-The imprescriptrble right Of
equality Of The several SteteS." How did this
restriction violate any right of the several State
unless they severally had the right to traffic il
slaves, and hold slaves as property within the
Territories, There was nothing restricted by i
hut slavery within the Territory therein lie
scribed.
But there is another passage in the message
before us, so happily expressed as to leave
no doubt of the Presidents me aairB II,
says:
The several States of the Uoion are. by fore
OF the Constitution, ooeval in domes tic legisls
tive power, Congress cannot change a law o
domestic relation in the State of Maine. nc
more can it in the State of Miss ouri. An,
statute which proposes 10 10 this is a mer
nullity-it takes away no right-it confer
none, + = "To repeal it vii
be only to remove imperfection from the stat
utes, without affecting, either in the sense 0
permission or prohibition, tho action of tn
States or their citizens. Still when the nomi
nal r~es!riC ion of this nature, already a dead le!
ter in law, was in terms repealed by the las
Congress, in a clause of the act organizing the
Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, that re
peal was made the occasion of a wide 81 reaC
and dangerous agitation"
Here is the assertion plainly expressed, tina
the several States have coequol domest lc legis
Iat;vs power, and that Con ress cannot prohi ID
it slavery in the Territories, because such
restriction, if allowed and enforced, would b,
a prohibition upon ''the action Of the States.
and "change a law Of domestic relation withi1
the States" Are the several States" by force
of the Constitution !" 'coequaI IN domestic
legislative power" And does that coe1ual leg
~islative power extend to the Territories;
We have already seen tina: the six northwest.
ern States were not coequal with the origina
States in domestic legislative power that they
were only permitted to form constitutions and
TO come into the Union upon the condition thai
slavery, "the domestic relation of some of the
other States, should be fore yer excluded from
lh cir territories: hat 10 day those six States
are in the Union upon that condition, and can.
not establish the domestic institution Of slavery
therein. Does this alleged "coequal domestic
legislative power OF the several States extend
to the Territories. The President manifestly Sc
concludes ;else how could the territorial prohib-
ilion Of slavery, if enforced, affect 1.-THE action
Of the States, or change q aw Of domestic re-
lation therein; II the several States have this
coequal power over the domestic institutions
of the Y erritories, no necessity exists for local
legislatio on there to prot,ct The domestic rela.
lion Of chattel slavery, The law of Georgia,
in that case, would follow the slave property
of its citizens thither, aud make it property there
and, for aught can see, the penal laws o.
Georgia would also operate there for the pro.
lection Of that property.
But it is useless to dwell upon a proposition
so monstrous and absurd; it has no sanction
in the Constitution or in reason. "The extra.
territorial legislative power Of, every State i,
limited otis own citizens aud subjects" Tha
is the decision Of the Supreme Court, in tht