The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-01-28


ton in reference to the exclusion of Slavery, its
| legislation in the passage of the Missouri Com
promise would have been rightful and valid.
| The Supreme Court agree with the Republicans
in denying the doctrine of popular sovereignty
in the Territories, as asserted by the ostensibe
authors and most active promoters of the Ne
braska act and in affirming the power of Con-
gress to make laws for the government of these
incipient States in all cases and for all Purposes
except in far it is restrained by the Consti-
tuition That do not err in this statement, APP
pears from the following extract from the opin-
ion ofeChief Justice fancy, in the case of Scott
as. Sanford.
at is thus clear, from the whole opinion this point
that the Court lin Insurance Company Canter did not
10 decide whether the power 40 govern the Terri
iones was derived from the clause in The Constitution or
was the necessary consequence OF the right 10 acquire
They do decide that the in Congress sttnqnesonabs
and an this IRE entirely concur and nothing ioA De found ."
tts opinion the contrary. The power stands firmly
the latter alternative put by the Cour-,ha, is The
eritabte consequence Of the right acquire ierrory"
So much for the Nicholson letter. So much
for "squatter sovereignty"
1t will be seen that the court fully agree with
the Republicans in repudiating, root and branch,
length and breadth, the dogma of popular sover-
eighty, but differ from them in holding that the
Constitution has forbidden the interference of
Congress for the restriction of Slavery. The
Republicans, maintaining the existence of this
general power in Congress, insist that it extends
to all proper subjects of legislation in the Terri
tories-the question of Slavery included. And
they agree with Senator Douglas and General
Cass, that it has no more power over Slavery
than it has over other questions of domestic
policy and interest.
But Mr.. Chairman, the Republicans hold that al
though the legislative power resides and of neces
sity must reside in Congress, it may be committed
by the latter in whole or in part into the hands of
the people of the Territories or, in other words,
hat nnnyh tha ms trn-
mentality of Territorial Legislatures, whose ac-
tion being subject to its approval or rejection,
becomes, in effect the action of that body. They
also believe that it is wise and expedent to del
egate to the people of the Territories the power
to make, or rather to initiate the laws and regu
latious in regard to such matters, systems, and
institutions, as purely local. and affect only
themselves but that there are Subjects not of
merely local character, which should be reserved
for the exclusive legislation of Congress. OF
such was the question of Slavery, or no Slavery,
in Kansas, as it affected, not only the people of
that Territory but also of all the States the in
terest and welfare, the peace and prosperity, of
all.
1t was question in which the people of Maine
and the people of Texas were interested. The
people of Maine believe that their interests
affected unfavorably by any act which extends
Slavery, and enlarges its power in the country
and in Congress, gives to the Representatives of
servile labor increased power to protect and pro-
mote the particular and special interests of those
who live upon such labor, at the expense, and it
may be to the destruction of free labor-of labor
that owns itself, and claims the right to protect
itself vital and sacred. And so they said to
their Representatives in 1920 and have said to
them ever since, while in all matters affecting
the people of the Territories alone it will be well
for you to allow them to make their own laws,
in those which concern not only them, but us
also, reserve the power to yourselves and to us,
whose agents you are, that rights may be
preserved and our interests protected Grant
not the power to the enemies of our Institutions
the Mormons, for example-to go on to our own
territory, purchased by blood or treasure, or
both, and there establish schemes and systems
of wrong and immortality and violence, discred-
liable TO the age, and disgraceful to the country
and which, if not checked, will undermine the
institutions of Christianity and civilization which
the butments and defences of Republican
Liberty.
Upon this point, rejoice to be able to bring
to my support the opinion of one of the wisest
men the Republic has ever known, and whose
authority in question of this character yields
to that of other name. ! refer to James
Madison, from whose writings read thus
Every addition the States to their number of
slaves tends 70 weaken and render them less capable
self defence In OF hosiiites with foreign
they will be The means OF inviting attack instead OF
Government TO protect OF their confines against
dangers ,ceH Internal ETERNAL Everything, there
which tends danger though be local
aBiT yet, if ii involves national expense safety. be-
comes OF concern 10 every OF The Umen, and
subJ for the consideration ofthose charged with
the gemeral administration OF the Government
1t required extraordinary degree of fore
sight to predict what would follow the repeal of
the Missouri Compromise. The slavehoding
oligarchy might use popular sovereignty for a
special purpose; but for them, as a principle of
had discovered that their system of servie labor
which required continual bracing and
strengthening. 1t is in its nature, all things
false and violent are, self-destructiye. 1t must
have scope and room for expansion, or it dies
blasting the earth wherever it treads it must
have " fresh woods and pastures new" or it
starves. 1t must be protected from without, and
its defences and supports must be placed beyond
the contingencies of public opinion, and out of
the reach of ordinary assault; therefore, it must
| be guarded by constitutional sanctions. Hence
| the bred Scott opinion-interpreted by President
| Buchanan, in his letter to Professor Siman and
Others containing the doctrine, as it undoubt-
| eddy does that the Constitution of the United
| States afixes in certain cases, to persons of
| African descent the character of property
| stamps them with the mark of chattels If this
be sound doctrine, it is plain that the Constitu-
ton carries Slavery not only into the Territories
| but into the States for whatever makes prop
| erty, no State law or Constitution can declare
shall not be property.
Sir, this is monstrous doctrine; and that it
| is necessary to be maintained, only proves the
mischievous and desperate character of the sys-
| TEN for whose protection it is invoked. If it is
| the true doctrine, then was the Constitution
| ordained not to secure the " blessings of lib
| erty" to the people of this country, but to fix
| upon them forever n system regarded, we have
| been taught to believe, by its trainers and all
| the early statesmen, as without foundation in
natural right or sound policy; then must it be
aamitted that the great end and object of the
| Constitution was to establish or protect Slavery
| everywhere within the range of its operations
For If it recognises, and was intended to recog-
Mise, property In slaves to such an extent that il
is not within the power OF State Tor Territory J
by its laws to forbid the existence of this rela-
| ton within its own jurisdiction it does. in re-
| gard to property in slaves, what it has never
| been understood to effect in respect to property
| in anything else-it makes a fundamental dis
| tinction between slave property and all other
| kinds of property. 1t has never been held that
| the Constitution gives to horses oxen carriages.
anything else, the character of property i'm the
sense in which it is understood by the President
and by the Supreme Court to affix that character
20 negroes held to service. The legislative
power Of State or Territory may, without
doubt, declare that there shall be no property in
liquors Of domestic manufacture in bank notes
in horses, in carriages without wheels or with
wheels, or with wide wheels or narrow wheels
or in oxen, as | am informed the Legislature OF
Missouri has already done. Nobody, presume
| questions the existence of this power in the
States 1t is exercised by them every day. Deny
it to them and they deprived of one of theil
most important functions What power but that
of the people of the several States can decide
what shall be treated as property within theil
. / A. "a ~