True American. [volume] (Steubenville [Ohio]) 1855-1861, 1857-02-04

no slavery, except in punishment Of
crime, upon due conviction. If the do.
nestle institutions Of the several States
are to obtain in the Territories, as iht
President asserts, how can they coexis
there when they thus conflict YoI
might as we'll expect two seperate anC
distinct substances 10 occupy The same
place at the same time, or life and death Il
coexist at the same moment in the same
body.
Sir, this proposition of Stats~equality
in the Territories is mere absurdity
except upon the hypothesis that the Ter
rtories shall be partitioned. Partition
would be compromise and when the
South assumed this position, her grea
leader Mr.. Calhoun told us, "Let us
be done with compromises let us gc
back and stand upon the Constitution, u
(Calhoun's Works, vol. 4, p. 347.)
agree to that-lhe North agrees to that
no more compromises-we stand upon
the Constitution. Then, Sir, there is Il
be no partition of these Territories no
apportionment of one part as slave terri.
terry. and another part as free territory
This being so, | say again, the equal do.
minion Of the States, " as States" within
the Territories is impossible. The priv
ilege to hold slaves in the Territories, fol
short time, until territorial statute OF
a constitution excluding it shall have been
adopted will not secure TO the Stales
equality in the sense used by the Presi
dent. II would not meet The demands oil
the South to permit them to 60 into the
Territories with their slaves to morrow
to be driven back and ousted by superior
numbers the next month or the next
year: To make good this demand l say
TO gentlemen,- must-you will take
another step, and that is, 10 assert your
right TO hold slaves within the Territor.
les after, as we'll as before, their erection
into States, This necessarily results, il
within the Territories the equality ol
each Of the States, as States, is 10 b,
maintained.
Why, sir, we were told but day OF
Two ago by the gentleman from South
Carolina, Mr.. Orr, that territorial stat.
utes were absolutely necessary 10 protect
slave property within the Territories
EnacLments to that end have already been
made in Kansas by usurpers. Repeal
these enaclmenls, as | trust you will re-
peal them, and what sanction or protec
lion then have you for slaves in Kansas
None, sir, none. You have criminal &C
for the punishment ofmwder, manning
ROBBERY, larceny, &c, when committed lr
any Place under The exclusive jurisdiction
of The United States, &c. This act
with its penalties, by lis own terms. a.
we'll as by your organic law, is in full
force in Kansas but it furnishes no pro-
lection 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 punished unde
that statute. If slave should there res
ist his masters authority over his person.
and take his masters life in defense O
his own liberty; think you the slave
could be held for murder under the ma
,ional statute! No, sir! Why would
it not be larceny under that statute t
steal slave in Kansas or murder for
slave to resist the assault of his master
and slay him in defense Of his liberty
Simply because larceny can only be com
miI'ed Of property; and by the Consl
tuition of our common country, thank
God, men ale not property, and cannot
be made property, and have the right to
defend their personal liberty even 10 tht
inhiction of death At common law
larceny can only be committed of proper
ty and it is not murder to kill another
in defense Of your person or liberty
Our penal statute uses the terms :" lar
ceny" and "murder" only in the sense
Of the common law.
That men are not properly under the
Constitution has been declared from the
Supreme Bench. In the case OF Groves
ct. al. Us. Slaughter, (l3 Peters, p. 5O7,,
Justice Mclean, speaking of slaves, says
"The character of property is given them
by the local law" and that " The Const
tuition acs upon slaves as persons, ant
not as property" 1t needs no opinion o.
that distinguished man aud eminent juris
10 establish This. Ifslaves were property
under the Constitution, it would follow
that they would continue property. where
. ever the owner might take them within
the Union; and hence he might hold hi.
slaves as property within Ohio, not
wilhstandiug her constitutional prohibi
Ion. 1t has been ruled that, if the own
er bring his slave within that State, tbt
slave is free If the Constitution woult
protect slave property in Ohio, it woult
protect it in Kansas. The Constitution
protects it in neither and hence it follows
that it can be protected only by local law
The gentlemon from South Caroini
Mr., Orr was right, therefore, in saying
that without territorial laws to protect it
slave property could mol be held in til,
Territories. This concession, sir, Will,
it is manifestly true, is fatal 10 the Presi
dents assertion of the constitutional
and imprescriptible right Of each and al
of The States, as States, TO hold slaves il
the Territories.
The Presidents assertion. f" OF the i'm
prescriptibls right of equality of the sew
eral Slates,' is without meaning if
does not mean that the several States
have extra-territorial power, lhroughou
the national domain, to enforce and main
tain property in slaves. What els
could he mean by saying that the res
! iriotinn Of tho mt ,,f loon ,,;.Iot.l IA Al