The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-04-08

su"s sSs1 hoo reference 70 the Domestic lnGtltu
tons, not of family, but Of State, and the
domestic institutions of Kansas are the provis
sions Tor its government found in its Constitu
ton. .&.lia SSds1l'g32sI
WAS fHE SLAVERY QUESTION SUBMITTED
II We we're 10 admit that the term !" domestic
Institutions referred only to the family relations
II would Include great many things besides
slavery; and If the provisions Of the Kansas
Nebraska act required the provisions of tho
Constsution Of Kansas relating to her domes
TIC institutions to be submitted to q vote of ths
people. then the Lecompton Convention most
clearly violated this part Of the organic law
tor nothing but the Slavery clause-and thai
only IN psrt-was submitted. The Presideni
admits that the term domestic institutions ,
includes "a fen other relations " besides those
OF Ssaster and servant -(-
We eli know that It includes great man,
more, and those of the highest Importance
The relation of husband and wife, parent and
child, guardian and ward, are universally ad
mitted to be "domestic institutions" in the
moat confped sense in which the terms are evel
used. Yet.no Submission Of the legislative
power IN reference to any of these relations wal
made These are the most delicate and i'm
portant relations which we sustain. Why, then
were they not submitted The President says
the Kansas Nebraska act required the provis
ions relating to the domestic institutions &c
be submitted. 1t was not done and, there
fore, on his own showing, the Constitution il
clearly IN violation of the organic act. But j,
may be argued that have given q more en-
larged Specification to the term domestic in
stitusion" than the President did, and thai
therefore my conclusions are unjust to him. j
intend no injustice, and will be guilty of none
where know it, and more especially to our
Chief Magistrate, whom I honor and respect
But do not intend to let this matter pass from
me until have shown that even in relation to
Slavery the Lecompton Convention has not
complied with the Presidents interpretation OF
the organic act. The President contends that
it was the duty of the Convention to submit the
Slavery question to a vote of the people, Was
this doneP If it was not, then the action OF
the Convention is in violation of the law of Con.
gress, and is therefore void. Was the Slavery
clause submitted to a vote of the people? No
one dare contend that it was. The only cues
ton submitted to be voted upon was the TN
port0tiow Of slaues from places without the Ter.
ritory. Slavery, as 1t eristed in the Territory,
was not only not submitted, but, on the con-
trary, it was trsd and established, so that all
who were slaves at that time, and all their de.
seendants, throughout all time to come, were
to be and remain slaves. And not only was
this true, but the voter was compelled to vote
for this continuance of Slavery before he would
be allowed to even vote for prohibiting the i'm
poftation of slaves, for it is to be remembered
that the tickets we're, :" For the Constitution"
or For the Constitution without Slavery"
The ticket was all the time /" For the Constitu
tion,' never against it. |" For the Constitu.
tion," with all its Slavery clauses, was the
ticket. Now, if the Presidents construction is
correct, the question of Slavery should have
bean submitted to vote of the people. Not a
part of the question, bat the whole question of
Slavery. Not simply whether any more slaves
should be imported, bat whether Slavery should
continue to e1ist. m -sE4 s-,U
The law provides that the State is to be ad-
mitted scith or cithout Slavery, as the people
should determine. Notwithstanding this pro-
vision of the organic Law, Slavery was fastened
upon them by the Lecompton Constitution
vithcus ths'r consent, and no opportunity was
this what you define clearing the p se;s per
tectly free to form and regulate their domestic
in their otcn aoays" Is tins your
of the meaning of that boosted
law extending popular sovereignty? Let us
examine this question still further. Not only
was the Slavery question not submitted, but
before the voter was permitted to deposit his
ballot on the future importation of slaves, he
might be required to take an oath to support
The Constitution if adopted. he was required
10 swear to support what he might desire to
vote against. The history of the Old World
furnishes instances where oeths of allegiance
have been required from conquered people,
but never before in our free land has an Amer
can citizen been insulted when be approached
the polls to deposit his ballot, with demand
10 swear allegiance to q Constitution which was
not adopted, and which he might not desire to
have adopted. If l had been q citizen of Kan.
sas, would have regarded such q demand an
accusation against my patriotism and en- insult
TO my manhood would not have taken it.
and ] would therefore have been disfrsnchised.
But will waive the implied charge of treason,
which lies in the demand TO take such, an oath,
and which was intended to drive high minded
men away from the polls, and will take it for
granted that the voter was willing to secure his
rights by such degradation. The next question
is, was the oath one which man could safely
take? Follow me, whilst examine this cues
ton. The 6rst section of the seventh article
of the Lecompton Constitution reads as follows:
"The right of property is before and higher
than any constitutional sanction, and the right
of the OaOner Of slaue to such slaue and its
increase is the same, and is as inriolabls as the
right Of the oYner Of any property ,e4dterer."
Is this the declaration Of legal and consti.
tutional truthy Is it true that the right of
property in slave rests on the same foundR.
ton as that of horse or q COW? We are told
in that great good Book, that when God had
deluged the earth, and destroyed the antedilu.
Wan race, except Noah and his family, he made
q solemn covenant with Noah; az tie 'sepFesent-
stiye and father of the tribes and nations of
men that we're to live in the countless ages of
future time; o part of which covenant ia in
the fear of you, and the dread of Won, shall be
upon every beast Of the earth, and upon every
fowl of the air upon all that moveth upon the
earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into
your hands are they delivered" Upon this
grand and glorious covenant with the great
Creator of the Universe We predicate our title
to property in animals-but man Is not tnclu.
9ed. The right to the beasts of the field, the
birds of the air, and the fishes of the sea-" is
derived from the covenant Of the rainbow, and
wherever its triumphal arch spans the heavens
with its web of brilliant beams, the right of
man to such property is acknowledged and re-
spected. 1nis right of property does indeed
stand above human laws and Constitutions
comes from Deity; and it will remain above
human Constitutions as long as the bright bow
in the clouds shall gid the heavens when
storms prepare to part" .t
Nov, viii not dispute the right of our
Southern brethren 70 thsir siaves, but that
right Comes from the local enactments of the
State; it is not derived from the law Of Goo,
but Is the creature of human legislation. The
right to hold slave is q matter of positive
and, being but a human Law, can
be repealed by the legislative authority Of any
country where it exists. " !
am a. wiling to carry out the compromises
Of the Constitution on ths subject In good faith,
q. any other man. I respect tie Fisht posseas'