The Kansas herald of freedom., 1858-10-16
Federal Legislation Demanded for the Protection
Of Slavery.
From Me RicAmond Enqnirer.

The present state of Federal legislation
is entirely inadequate for the thorough
and effectual protection of slave property
in the Territories. The Kansas Nebraska
act gives the people of Territory full
power to legislate for themselves, subject
only to the limitations prescribed by the
Federal Constitution. The Dred Scott
decision demonstrates that the Constitu-
ton of the United States denies to
Territorial Legislature the power to pro-
hibit slavery. as % a,.
Thus slavery cannot be prohibited in
Territory. But how can it be protected
The Kansas act does not protect it. That
law does not make it imperative on Ter
ritorial Legislature TO provide "local po-
lice regulations, furnishing remedies and
means of enforcing the right to hold
slaves" Under the present state Of Fed
eral legislation, there are no especial rem
edies and means Of enforcement provided
for the security of the constitutional rights
of the South in this respect. Slave prop
erty is left to the more general regulations
of the Federal code, embracing every
species of property. The experience of
every slave State in the Union demon
stratcs that such general provisions are
altogether inadequate for the security
of slave property. Slavery is not
mere institution of property. 1t is in
itself separate element of patriarchal
government-a social element in another
sense than that in which property can be
so considered. 1t has direct influence
on the relations of families, ,neighborhoods
and political communities. Peculiar in
its nature, it requires peculiar adapta-
ton Of municipal law for its healthy
maintenance. Take single example:
A settler goes to one of our Western Ter
ritories, which happens to have an anti
slavery Legislature. His slave is per-
suaded away from him by some under
ground agent, whom he afterwards iden
titles as the malefactor What can he do?
He consults his lawyer, who tells him that
he will be obliged to frame new action
on the case, for which there is, in all prob
ability, no precedent-and thus trust to
civil suit to recover in special damages
the value of his slave. The wrong-d doer
may be bankrupt-or the plaintiff may
be altogether unable to produce evidence
as to the value of the slave. At best, he
will be sure to find the civil suit long con-
tested and expensive, and finally come
out minus only his lawyers fee, in conse-
quence of purse being made up by an
abolition society to protect the defendant
from losses. The latter becomes often
times more enthusiastic than ever in the
cause of Underground railroads, and the
plaintiff inwardly resolves never again to
trust to civil suit for the protection Of
slave property. He loses another slave
and again eonsults legal adviser-this
| time with view to institute criminal'pro-
cess against the person who has furnished
his slave with money and letters by which
he has been enabled to escape to a Free
State. No such process can be instituted
Why not? Congress has passed no law
under which this can be recognized as a
criminal offence, or even a misdemeanor.
The whole matter of providing such leg
islation has been left to the uncontrolled
action of the Territorial Legislature, as it
was done by the Kansas act. And the
Territorial Legislature has done nothing
at all. But can't the Territorial Legisla-
ture be compelled to pass such laws? By
no means. Congress, the Supreme Court
or the President may prevent the passage
or the execution of an unconstitutional
law by Territorial authority. Butneither
Of these can, by any means in their power,
oblige the Territorial Legislature to pass
any law whatever, however constitutional
or necessary in its character. -. -..s
Thus it is that Territorial Legislature
may, notwithstanding the full recognition
of the bred Scott decision and the Kan
sas-N Nebraska act, by lawful means, prac-
tically exclude slavery from Territory
before it becomes a State. We say this
may be done by lawfM means. This
should be properly understood. We dc
not say, nor does Senator Douglas say
that protection may be thus withheld from
slave property, without a violation of the
spirit Of the Constitution. The point tc
be considered is, where does the burden
of this violation by omission finally rest
Not with the Territorial Legislature
That body may fairly and legally refuse
to accept responsibility which Congress:
itself declines to incur. Members Of Con.
gress have no right to shift this RESPONSE
bility from their own shoulders to that o.
7 their Territorial delegates. The Consti.
!. tuition requires that slave property shall
r be protected in the Territories, and il il
. the business of Congress to furnish thi'
l protection directly and Immediately. /
D members of Congress attempt to avoiC
; this responsibility, and then attempt x
complain of similar avoidance on tht
part of Territorial authorities, the latte
!; can meet them with the prompt and con
! elusive rejoinder, "do ityourselves !"
This is the state Of affairs demonstrated
: by Senator Douglas Freeport speech
t And this is ALL He has come forwart
Q boldly to point out to Southern men thu
q exact locality and nature of the nuisanc,
e to which they are subjected. He has pro
n claimed the truth that the Kansas Ne
] braska act and the Dred Scott decision
d are, of themselves, insufficient for the pro
S lection Of slave property in the Terrific
:. ries.
J Have we no reason to be thankful 70
s this honest lesson? 1t is true teaching
aud it behooyes Southern men to hee,
J the only Just conclusion to be drawn from
n 1t. Congress must intervene to protect slaue
! ryi the Territories. Let us put our shoul
q der to the wheel and labor earnestly, faith
r fully and prudently for the consummatio
. of this constitutional necessity.
| From tle sala<. fig
I'll The right of property in slaves, in th
States, is now placed practically, as we
d as legally, beyond the reach of Federa
: legislative encroachment But in tn
II Territories the case is different Il is no
g sufficient that the decision of the Sunrem