Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-12-09
SLAVERY in the Territories,

senator DOUGLAS IN his enorts TO reconcile SQuats
ter Sovereignty with he doctrines Of the bred
Scott Decision has involved himself and his follow
ers in considerable confusion on the subject of
Slavery in the Territories. The reason is obvious
the two things are inconsistent. Even the ingea
nuity Of Judge Douglas is foiled in an attempt to
bend the plain and rigid principles Of constitutional
Law to q seeming conformity with his own tOrtuous
course and crooked policy.
The Supreme Court distinctly hold that The ter
ritories Of the United States are the common prop
erty Of the people, that any citizen Of this country
has right TO emigrate to the territories with such
property as he has held at home, and that he will
be protected in ts enjoyment BY The Constitution Of
They held that The first settlers upon the public
domain have no right to deprive the rest of
their fslloW-eitizens Of their rights IN the com
mon property Of the States, and consequently
cannot enact laws by which any class Of citizens
may be excluded If The Squaitsrs in the territories
can through their territorial legislature, say that
the citizens Of the Slave States shall not enter the
territory with their property they really dspriV
ing them Of their rights to the equal enjoyment Of
the public domain. If they can exclude Slave prop
sry they can as la Efuly exelud esny other property
They can as legtimately ssy ~ the people of Ills
nois that they shall not bring tbr horses and mules
into the territory, IS they can say to the citizens
Of Tennessee that they cannot bring their negroes
shither They have no right under the decision of
the Supreme Court to do either.
But Judge DoUeLAs contends that the territorial
legislature may prohibit the establishment Of
Slavery BY unfiendly legislation. Now this would
Be in direct conflict with the constitutional rights
Of the States, which, the Supreme Court decide,
arc joint owners Of the territory, until it becomes
Sovereign State. It is doctrine which would give
the FIRST settlers Of the territory the power to multi
fy the Consultation and the laws of the United
States, which guarantee to every citizen the same
rights Of property and of person in the territories
that he enjoys in his own State. 1t is as unjust as
though, one Of several joint owners of a
tract Of land should settle upon il, and actually
prohibit the others from coming there at ell with
their implements Of agriculture or tools of trade.
It is virtually enabling portion Of the inhabitants
of the United States to mORopoize the property
of all
Percsiving the difficulties of his position, Judge
DOUGLAS has attempted in subsequent speeches to
modify this opinion, by saying that while the terri
tOrial legislature has no right to pass Law prOhib
iting the introduction Of Slavery, they may enact
laws which win render this kind of property value
less. The leading Black Republican paper in Kan
cas- claims that according to this doctrine Of Judge
DOUGLAS, the legislature Of the territory may
give the negro the right to strike back; thst the
relation between master and slave may be so modi-
fed by legislative enactment to render il imposs-
bic for the institution to continue with safety to the
IA.
Of this odious doctrine. Judge DoUGLss main
tains that while the constitution allows slave
holders to carry their slaves to the territories,
the territorial legislature may arm them against
their owners and permit them unpublished to resist
the exercise of lsWfnl and necessary authority.
Now the Supreme Court decide that it is the duty
Of the territorial legislature under the constitution
to protect its citizens in the enjoyment Of their
rights Of person and Of property. How then, can
the legislature withhold such profession without a
violation Of the constitution Above sll how can
that body assume to deprive the owner of the right
to govern and control his property How can it
undertake to destroy the relations between master
and slave established by the common law Of this
country? How can it pass Law which would rem
der the negro the equal Of his master aud virtually
emAuGlpdl6 every bthN6 IA buC IcAA4hOAy A'SAy
candid man will admit that such action the part
Of territorial legislature would be unconstitutional
and revolutionary, and should be suppressed by the
interpretation Of the general government. II is vain
for Judge DoUGLAs to endeayor 10 shield himself
from Southern eensure, by coutsnding that the au-
thOrities of q territory may refuse TO afford any
protection to slavery and thus exclude it. Slavery
needs no protection there which is not provided by
the laws and constitution Of the United States. If
the slave escapes from his owner he must be cap
tured by an officer Of the government under the
provisions Of The Fugitive SlsveLsW fine resists law
full authority he is tried by the Federal Judges and
punished uuder the laws of Congress and the cOm-
mon law Of the country. If melted 10 insubOrdi-
nation or rebellion by abolition emisssries, the au>
thorities Of the United States have the power to
apply the proper remedies. No case can be i'm
agined where the interpolation of the legisla-
ture would be necessary for the protection OF
slavery in the territories 1t exists there under
the broad shield of the Common Law, and under
the sanction Of the Constitution It is the duty Of
the Federal officers to enforce the law and guard the
constitutional rights of all citizens from Intersection
Not until the territory becomes State, are these
important duties transferred 10 the local suthori-
ties.
In several Of the territories of the United States
Slavery existed for years without any protection
from territorial legislation. Why may it not exist
in Kansas also, in the absence Of local laws? Judge
DOUGLAS argument that it cannot exist there, is
mere sophism intended to reconcile the South to q
doctrine, which was intended to concilate the AbO-
ltioniss and win their support in the late Senatorial
canvass.
We again welcome our fair correspondent from