The independent press. (Abbeville C.H., S.C.) 1853-1860, 1857-01-23
ABBEvILE H., SOUTH CAROLINA MORNING. JANUARY 49, 1857

and leading feature in that bill was to trans,
fer the legislation, and power of Congress
on slavery, and all other subjects, to the
Territorial Legislatures, aad let the popular
will there shape and form the laws for their
own government without restriction save
the proviso that such legislation should bc
consistent with the Constitution aud gener-
al laws of the United States.
| This was the great idea in the legislation
OF 1854, and it has been indorsed in the
late election of the people.
Now, ! admit that there is difference of
opinion amongst Democrats as to whether
this feature ofSquatter sovereignty be in the
till or not. But the great point upon which
the Democratic party at Cincinnati rested
was, that the government of the Territories
had been transferred from Congress, and,
carrying out the spirit and genius of our
institutions, had been given to the people of
the Territories. | am one Of those who do
not believe in the doctrine Of squa;tcr sovcr-
cigntv. / do not believe that the kauSas-
Nebraska bill establishes or recognises squat
ter sovereignty within the limits Of the Ter
rItories Of Kansas and Nebraska and the
process of reasoning by which reach that
result is, that see no authority in the Con-
stitution Of the United States which author
ICES Congress to pass the WiImot provi>o
or any antiSlavery restriction in the Terrific
ries and do not apprchenh how Congress,
not having the power, itself, can create an au-
| thori,y and invest 4 creature with greater
power and authority tlIan it possesses.
know there are other gentlemen belonging
to the Democratic party who think that the
Territorial Legislatures are invested with
authority to prohibit or Introduce slavery
within the Territories.
But the gentleman from Tennessee Mr..
Smith the other day struck the true point
in this controversy, and it takes i'll the wind
out of the sail of my friend from Kentucky,
and leaves him hig and dry upon land :;
and invite his attention to the statements
and arguments in reference to it.
say, although, deny that squattcr sovcr-
cignly exists in the Territory of Kansas and
Nebraska 10y virtue of this bill, it is Il matte
practically of little consequence whether it
does or not; and think shall he able to
satisfy the gentleman of that. The gentle
men knows that, in every slavchnling com
munitv of this Union, we have local lcgiSla-
ton and local police regulations appcrtaim-
ing to that institution, without which the
institution would no. only be vaIuclcss, but :,
curse to the community. Withnut them
the Shareholder could not enforce his rights
when invalrl hv others and if YOU had
no local Legislation for the purpose Of giving
protection, the institution wou!l be Of no
value. | can appeal to every grn,lem an
upon this floor who represents a slavcholl-
ing constituency, to attest the truth Of what
have stated upon that point.
Now, the Legislative author,i.y Of Terri.
tory is invested with discretion to vote
for or against laws. We think they ought
to pass laws in every Territory, when the
Territory is open TO settlement, anl slave
holders 90 there, TO protect slave property
But if they decline t" pass sucl, laws, wha,
is the remedy? None, sir Iftle mnjority
Of the people arc opposed to the institution,
and if they do not desire it ngrafted upon
their Territory, all they have to do is simply
to decline to pass laws in the Territorial Lc-
gisa'urc for its protection and it is as well
excluded as if the power was invested in the
Territorial Legislature. and exercised BY
them, to prohibit it. Now, ask the gen.
tleman. what is the practical importance to
result from the agitation and discussion OF
this question as to whether squatt"r sover.
eighty does. or does not, exist? Practical,
ly it if a matter Of little moment.
| Mr.. II. Marshall. Do I understand the
gentleman from South Carolina to take the
position, that if it is his constitutional right
to take his negro into Kansas, or any other
Territory, he believes that his right becomes
of no practical consequence unless he has a
Territorial Legislature which will protect
him in holding that property
Mr.. Orr. No, sir. The gentleman from
Kentucky lives in slaveholding State, and
knows that there must be peculiar laws
passed within the limits of the State, for
the purpose Of securing that peculiar spe.
cies of property. Suppose party in a
Territory inveigles away his slave and there
is no law making it a criminal offence, how
do you reach hin Suppose an individu.
al harbors your slave ;shile in the Territory,
what remedy have you against hims Wha.
remedy have you to enforce the rights of the
owner against trespassers and Intermediates,
unless you have local Legislature to pass
laws to enforce those rights undertake
|
there were no local legislation to protect the
institution, the institution would be an IN
mitVgated curse to the country.
Mr.. II. Marshall. The Constitution pro,
tects the slave as property. 1t does not es'
tablisb slavery or forbid it in Territory
Wl,en the citizen goes into the Territory
with his slave, holding him as property, the
political law of this country protects him
in his property, whatever that property is
Of right, and the common law Of England
furnishes him the remedies to assert lis
right.-If my slave is beaten can main
tain detinue or trover. The remedies
draw from the common law, the right to
my slave from the relation legally establish
edsin State, and which docs not change
by my passage to a Territory Of my owr
country, where no law prohibits it.
Mr.. Orr. suspect that the only com
mon law which the gentleman conld appea
to would be the common law of the Terri
tory. 1t certainly would not he the com
mon law Of England. TIE Constitution o
the United States gives to me, or recogni