The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-12-02

the Territories of the United States, until they
reach to the dignity D. community independ
ence, when the subjecstpietter will be entirely
under the control of tie people, and be deter
mined BY their fundamel Al law If the inhab
itants Of any Territory SHOULD refuse to enact
such laws and police reg Iations as would give
security to their proper5T orsto his, it would be
rendered more or less tiueless, in proportion
to the difficulty of hold 4 it without such pro
lection. In the case Of sroperty in the labor Of
man, or what is usual y-called slave property
the insecurity would be 70 great that the owner
could not ordinarily 'yetain it. Therefore
though the right woufs remain, the remedy
being withheld, it woulG follow that the owner
would be practically dsbarred by the circum.
stances of the case frosss taking slave property
into Territory where 81 sense of the inhabit
ants was opposed to Its ptroduetion. SO much
for the oft-repeated faslpy of forcing Slavery
upon any community q
" And in subseqg5at part of the same
speech the matter was Ieated of in this wise
." The South had net asked Congress to ex:
tend Slavery into the territories; and he, in
common with most otkel Southern statesmen
denied the existence Gksany power to do So
he held it to be the csstd Of the Democracy,
both in the North and Zee South, that the ZEN.
eral Government had no constitutional power
either to establish or prohibit Slavery any
where. A grant of po~er TO do the one must
necessarily have involvel the power to do the
other. Hence it is thea policy not to interfere
on the one side or the other, but protecting
each individual in his Constitutional rights, to
leave every independe.. community to deter
mine and adjust all dcIaestic questions as in
their wisdom may seem test.'
=" In other speeches n,aae elsewhere-in New
Eng land and in New Ysr&-the equality of the
South as joint owners was declared and main.
tanned, as had often done before the people Of
Mississippi and in the Senate of the United
States, when the subject was in controversy
The position taken by rqts in 1850, in the form
of an amendment Offered 70 one of the compro-
mise measures of thattyesr. was intended to
assert the equal right % all property to the
protection of the United sStates, and to deny to
any legislative body the ,)wer to abridge that
right. The decision OF. sbe Supreme Court in
the bred Scott case has judy sustained our po-
sition in the following psssage.: ~
If Congress itself cl4 got do this prohibit
Slavery in Territory, If it is beyond the
powers conferred on the s deral Government
1t will be admitted, we = esume, that it could
not authorize a Territoria Government to exer.
else them. Ii could cOa, n no po,cer on any
local Gocernment establis1 ed by us authority to
ciolate the provisions of'ds Constitution.
And ifthe Constitute 4 recognises the right
OF property of the master n q slave, and makes
no distinction between As description of prop
erty and other property o, sed BY citizen, no
tribunal, acting under the suthority Of the Uni
ted States, whether legl iative, executive, or
judicial, has a right to drs such distinction,
or deny oft the benefit o. the provisions and
guarantees which have been provided for the
protection of private prop .rty against the en-
croachments Of the Government
g At the time of the ado ption of the Kansas
Nebraska bill, it certainly was understood that
the constitutional right yoz-ake slaves into any
Territory of the United ates should thence
forth be regarded as ju icial question and.
therefore, special provision was made to facili-
tate the bringing of such .uSstions before the
Supreme Court of the Uni d States. After the
decision to which referenc has Just been made.
the prominent advocate of the bill at the time
of its enactment should have been eskopped
from recurring to, his 'sYuatter socereignty
heresies, though the decisit q should have been
different from his anticipa ION or desire. And
as much interest has been felt in relation to his
position, and some inquiry has been made as to
my view of it, pW here. say that I consider
ham as hdring recanted tn better opinions an
nounced by him an 1854, CID that I cannot be
compelled to choose Jetaoee men, one of schon,
asserts the po,cer Of Co, rress to deprire us
Of q constitutional righr, -and the other only
denies the po,cer Of Congress IN order to transfer
to the Territorial Legis atUe. Neither the
one nor the other has any authority to sit in
judgment on our rights, tsder the Constitution
Between such position Mississippi cannot
have preference, because she cannot recognise
anything tolerable in eitl 81 of them.
Having called your attention to the speech
made at Portland, to shos that other parts of it
disprove the constructor put upon the para
graph which was taken fsprn it, and reported to
be part of the speech delivered at Bangor, it
may be as we'll on this occasion to state the
circumstances under wich the speech was
made at Portland. linn sdiately preceding the
State election, was invicsd by the Democracy
of that city to address ti.Sm, and nv attention
was specially called to "a usion practiced on
the people of Maine, by S&ch many were led
TO believe that there was1s purpose ON the part
of the South through TIA Government of the
United States to force Slavery not only into the
Territories, but also intdFthe non layeholding
States of the Union 1t Sas represented to me
that, in the last Presidential canvass one of the
Senators Of Maine had cesyinced many of the
voters that, if Mr.. Buchansn should be elected
Slavery would be forced uE,en Maine, and that
the other Senator was ars3ing that the bred
Scott decision of the Sup7fne Court had given
authority to introduce AID hold slaves in that
State. To counterfeit susb impressions, iniTri-
Gus to the South and her friends, the remerks
which have been extracted were mada