The weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1858-1860, 1858-08-24
YEAR. BURLINGTON a.

q The Dubuque Express Herald seema
% nave 'nauguratsd for the campAign system
OF hard lying. Having lied over the whole
ground Of State politics, i. now steps into the
arena Of national affairs with the following rars
sample:
There Is nothing IN the Dyed Scoss decision,
ssieh Jor6ids the prohibition Of slavery 6y Terri.
torial Legisistsres, and nothing which prevents
the abolition Of slavery BY the same authority.
acting as the representatives Of the people.
To show the truthfulness Of the Herald. we
propose to make few extracts from the Dred
Scott decision:
Tho territory being . part Of the United
States the Government and the citizen both en-.
ter It under the authority Of the Constitution.
With their respective rights defined and marx ed
out; and the Federal Government can exercise
no power over his person or preperty.-tPaRe
The rights Of property arc united with the
rights OF person, and placed on the same ground
oy the fifth amendment Of the Constitution
page 45O)
The right of property in slave is distinctly
and expressly affirmed in the Constitution,
The powers over persons and property Of
which we speak are not only not granted to
Congress, but are in express terms denied, and
they are forbidden to exercise them. And this
prohibition is not confined to the States, but the
words are general, and extend to the whole
territories over which the Constitution gives il
power to legislate, including those portions of
1t remaining under Territorial government as
well as that covered by States. = =. =
And if Congress itself cannot do this-if it is
beyond the powers conferred on the Federal
Government-it will be admitted, we presume.
that Cnnid M mi ~
mcnt to exercise them Il could colfer no
power on any local Government, established by
its authority, to violate the provisions of the |
constitution-(Page 450-l.)
And We are satisfied that no one who reads |
atteRtively the pages Of Peters Reports to |
which We have referred, can suppose tha. the |
of the Court was drawn for . moment |
10 the question now before this Court, or that |
it meant in that case to say that Congress had
a right to prohibit citizen of the United States
from taking any property which he lawfully held
into a territory.-(Page 446.)
Upon these considerations. it is the opinion
Of the Court that the Act Of Congress which
prohibited citizen from holding and owning
of this kind in the territory Of the
United States north of the line therein men,
Iioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and
s therefore yoid.-(Page 452.)
Here we have an enunciation, in this case, of
he following propositions -
LIST. Slaves are property within the meaning
# the Constitution.
I'd. The right to take this property into the
ommon territories is guaranteed by the Con-
titution.
Sd. The power to legislate over persons and
roperty was expressly denied to Congress, and
ould not therefore be conferred by Congress
pom territorial government.
And as a corollary following naturally from
hese plain propositions the Court decided that
he prohibition of slavery north OF SO deg. 80
lin. was null and void.
The man who would now controvert so well
nderstood matter as the Dred Scott decision
either knave whose object is to deceive and
lisead, or he is grossly ignorant and unable to
omprehend plain and clear language Ounce
'ho should learn something himself before he
ntertakes to teach the public.