New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-10-28
DOUGLAS versus BLACK.

Tie pamphlet of Mr. Douglas, for some time
promised, containing his reply to Judge Blacks
criticism On the famous Harper article, has q!
length made its appearance. The only part Of this
pamphlet which contains anything with much point
in it, is the answer to Judge Blacks theory as to
the way in which Slavery obtains legal footing In
the Territories, independently of any express legis-
latiou by Congress, or the Territorial Legislatures
with aiding its existence there. Judge Black, 1t
will be recoected does not base the RICH. Of slave
holders 10 take their slaves into the Territories and
to hold them there upon the Constitution OF the
United States. He does not pretend that the Con-
stitution establishes Slavery 10 the Territories or
anywhere else, and he treats as an infamous as
pe rsioD, on the part of Mr. Douglas, the sug.
eettion, in hi, Harper article, that such doctrine
is held by section Of the Democratic party.
He places the right of the emigrsnt from Slave
State to continue ~ hold as slaves the negroes
whom be may take with him into Territory on
the established principle of public law that rights
Of property and private relations lawfully existing
in one State or country are not changed by the
mere removal of the parties to another country, il
there be no conflicting law in that other country
by which such rights Of property or relations are
prohibited. Thus, msrf,ge lawfully solemnized
in France is binding here, children Legitimate by
the law Of Germany are legitimate here, aud goods
purchased in New.York may be held under the title
thus acquired in any part of the civilized world.
To this foundation for the right Of slsvehOlding
in the Territories, Dir. Douglas Objects in the first
place that the very authorities that lay down this
doctrine Of the recognition in one State OF rights
originating under the laws OF another State, ex-
pressy except the relation of master bnd slave,
unless Slavery be expressly recognized BY the laws
of the country to which the transfer is msde. In
the secoLd place, be urges that foreign law can
have no efficacy of itself merely. 1t must oSe its
operation in any other State TO the consent Of that
State, either expressly given or implied, BY the
Courts, from the fact that there is no contravenDg
legislation nor any established syitem of policy run
ming counter 70 such q recognition. These laws
of other States are enforced not In their character
Of foreign laws, but as having been expressly or
tsctly adopted by the States in which they are en-
forced. The laws Of Virginia, as such, have and
can have no force in Kansas. They can operate
there only 80 far as Kans. consents to the rela-
tons which they create. Such is the doctrine
clearly set down on this subject BY the
Supreme Court of the United States and by all the
writer's on the subject. IT, therefore, slaves brought
into Territory are to continue 10 be held there,
il can only be on the strength OF consent, ex-
press or implied, On the part Of the Territorial
Legislature, TO the existence in the Territory
of the relation Of master and slave. But,
if the Territorial Legislature has, as Is con-
tended by Judge Black, no right to leglsate on sne
subject of Slavery, at east no right to pronoi' u
then tie mere fact that such prohibition exists
fails entirely to furnish any ground for concluding
that the Territory consents to the existence "'an
ts limits OF the relations created BY the laws OF
other States.
Even suppose tha. virginisn' without any
adoption, on the part Of Territory express or
implied, Of the institution Of Slavery, may claim
10 hold his slave on the strength Of bis Virginia
title. can he also undertake, on the strength OF
that title aore, AMI without any Territorial lessla-
ton 70 aid him, TO transfer his Ownership to any
body else! Can q Vegmon.er, WIZ. becomes tie