The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-11-24

the people OF the Territory opposed slavery they
will elect members to the legislature who will adopt
friendly legislation TO it II they are for it, they will
adopt the legislative friendly TO slavery Hence
matter what may be the decision OF the Supreme
Court that abstract question: still the right Of the
people 10 make it slave Territory free Territory
is perfect and complete under the Nebraska bill i
hope Mr. Lincoln will deem my answer satisfactory on
/ his point.
This is the distinct assertion OF the power Of territorial
legislation to admit exclude slavery of the first ia
the race OF migration who reach Territory, the
property of the people of the United States enact laws
for the exclusion of other joint of the territory
who may in the exercise of their equal right the
common property, choose 70 take with them property
recognised by the constitution but not acceptable to the
first emigrants to the Territory That senator had too
often and too fully discussed with the question Of
'squater sovereignty To be justified ia thus nissating
my opinion The difference between is as wide as that
Of who should assert the right To vote from him
who admitted the power 1t is true stated it at that
time, all property requires protection from the society
the midst of which il is held This necessity does not
confer right TO destroy but rather creates obligation
to protect Ii is true stated It, that slave property
peculiarly requires the protection Of society and would
ordinarily become valueless in the midst OF community
which would seek to seduce the slave from his
and conceal him whilst abscondng, and, jurors pro-
tect each other in any suit which the master might bring
for damages. The laws Of the United States, through
the courts of the United States might enable the
to recover the slave wherever he could find him but
you all know in such community have supposed,
that slave inclined to abscond would become utterly
useless, and that the extent of the admission
The extract on which reliance has feen placed Ia
ken from speech made at Portland ard both before and
after the extract the language employed concusvey
disputes the construction which uniriendy criticism has
put upon the detached passage Immediately preceding
it the following language was used
" The territory being the property of States
equals In the Union, and bound by the constitution
which recognises property in slaves, u Is abuse of
terms TO call aggression the migration into that territory
of of its joint owners because carrying with him any
by the
United States The federal government has power TO
declare what is property anywhere The power of each
State cannot extend beyond its limits As
quence, therefore, whatever is property in any of the
States must be considered in any of the Territories of
the United States until they reach TO the dignity of
munity Independence when the subjeG matter win be
entirely under the control of the people and be deter
mined by their fundamental law If the inhabitants of
any Territory should refuse to enact such laws and police
regulations would give security to thr property
his, IL would be rendered less yalueless in pro-
portion to the difficulty of holding it without such pro-
lection In the of property in the labor of man OF
what s usually called slave property, the insecurity
would be great that the could ordinarily re-
tain it, Therefore, though the right would remain the
remedy being withheld it would follow that the owner
would be practically debared by the circumstances of the
from taking slave property into Territory where
the sense of the inhabitants opposed to its ntoduc
ton SO much for the ofcpeaed falhcy OF forcing sa
very upon any community "
And in subsequent part Of the same speech the mat
ter treated Of in this wise
" The South had not asked Congress to extend slavery
into the Territories, and lie, in with most other
southern statesmen denied the existence of any pow
to do He held it to be tho creed of the democ-
racy both in the North and the South that the gene
raj government had no constitutional power either to
tablish prohibit slavery anywhere grant of power
to do the must necessarily have involved the power
to do the other. Hence it is their policy not to inter
tere on the one side the other but protecting each
individual in his constitutional rights to leave every
independent community to determine and adjust all do
nestle questions in their wisdom may seem best
In other speeches made esewherc--in New England
and in New York--the equality Of the South joint
ers declared and maintained, had often done
before the people Of Mississippi and in the Senate the
United States when the subject in controversy The
position taken by in 1850, in the form of amend
men offered TO of the compromise measures of that
year. intended to assert the equal right of all prop
erty to the protection of the United States and deny
to any legislative body the power to abJgc that right
The decision of the Supreme Court in the bred Scott
has fully sustained position in the following
passage
Ii Congress itself cannot do this (prohibt slavery
in Territory -if it is beyond the powers conferred on
the federal viii be admitted presume
that It could not authorize territorial government TO
exercise them could confer poc any local gorern
nu established By is authority to uate The provisions Of The
constitution.
And If the constitution recognises the right of prop
erty OF the master In slave and makes distinction
between that description of property and other property
owned by citizen tribunal acting under the author
ity of the United States, whether legislative executive
judicial, has right to draw such distinction or
deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees
which have been provided for the protection of private
property against the encroachments of the government
At the time of the adoption of the Kansas Nebraska
bill it certainly understood that the constitutional
right TO take slaves into any territory Of the United
States should thencetoTh be regarded judicial ques-
ton and therefore, special provision made to cl
tate the bringing of such questions before the Supreme
Court of the United States After the decision which
reference has just been made the prominent advocate
of the bill at the time of its enactment should have been
estopped from recurring to his fsquatter sovereignty
heresies though the decision should have been different
from his anticipation desire, And much interest
has been felt in relation to his position and inquiry
has been made to my view of it, will here say that
consider him having rccanted the better opinions
nonced by him in 1854 and that cannot DO compelled
to choose between men, of whom the power
of Congress to deprive of constitutional right and
the other only denies the power Of Congress in order to
transfer it to the territorial Legislature Neither the
the other has any authority to sit in judgment
rights under the constitution.
Between such positions Mississippi cannot have pref
eence because she cannot recognise anything oeable
in either of them.
Having called your attention to the speech made at
Portland to show that other parts of it dsproye the
strucon put upon the paragraph which taken from
and reported 70 be part Of the speech delivered at
Bangor it may be as well on this occasion to state the
circumstances under which the speech made at PORT
land immediately preceding the State election in
ved by the democracy Of that city to address Them and
my attention specially called to delnsipn practised
the people of Maine by which many led to be.
lieve that there purpose on tho part Of the,
South through the Of the United States
force slavery not only into the Territories but also into
non yeholdinp States Union renre-