The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1859-10-12

goes or is taken. The Federal Constitution
therefore recognizes slavery as legal condition
wherever the local governments have chosen to
let It stand unabOlished, and regards it as ille-
gal wherever the laws Of the place have forbid
den it. As.avs boing property in Virginia, re-
mains property; and his master has all the
! rights Of Virginia master wherever he may
60, so that he 90 not where the local law come:
in conflict with his right. Il will not be pre-.
tended that th, Constitution itself furnishes tC
the Territories conflicting law. 1t contains
no provision tha. can bs tortured into any sem.
blanes OF a prohibition.
! .. Ths dispute on tho question whether sla
very or freedom is local or general, is mere
war OF words. The black race in this country
is neither bond nor tree by virtue ol any gener.
al law. That portion of 1t which Is free is free
BY virtue Of some local regulation, and the slave
owes service tor similar reason The Consti
tuition aud laws o. the United States simply de-
clare that everything done in the premises by
| the State governments is right, and they shall
be protected in carrying it out. But free ne
groeS and slaves may both find themselves out
side Of any State jurisdiction, and in Terrific
ry where no regulation has yet been made or
the subject. There the Constitution is equally
| impartial 1t neither frees the slave nor en-.
slaves thOifroemen. 1t requires both to re.
main in staiu quo until the status already i'm,
pressed upon them by the law Of their previous
domicil shall be changed by some competent To-
cal authority. What is competent local author
ity in Territory will be elsewhere considered
| 3. The Federal Constitution care fully guards
the rights of private property against the Fed.
eral Government ITSELF by declaring that il
shall not be taken for public use without com,
pensation, nor without due process Of law
Slaves are private property, and every man whC
has taken an oath Of fidelity to the Constitu,
ton is roligiously, morally and politically bound
! to regard them as such. Does anybody sup
pose that Constitution which acknowledges
the sacredness of private property so fully
would wantonly destroy that right, not by any
words that are found in it, but by mere lmpli.
cation from its general principles? 1t might as
well be asserted that the general principles o
the Constitution gave Lane and Montgomery a
right to steal horses in the valley of the Usage
4. The Supreme Court Of the United States
has decided the question. After solemn argu-
inent and careful consideration, that august tri-
bunal has announced its opinion to be that q
STAKEHOLDER, by going into Federal Territory,
does not lose the title he had to his negro in
the State from which he came. In former
times, question Of constitutional law once
decided ty the Supreme Court was regarded as
settled by ALL except that little band Of ribald
in6dcls, who meet periodically at Boston to
blaspheme the religion, and plot rebellion
against the laws of the country. The leaders
OF the so-called republican party have lately
been treading close on the heels Of their aboli
ton brethren; but it is devoutly to be hoped
that Mr. Douglas has no intention to follow
their example. In case he is elected Pres sident,
Does he think he can keep that oath by fight
ing the Judiciary?
s. The legislative history Of the country
shows that all the great statesman Of times en-
tertaned the same opinion, and held it so firm
ly that they did not even think OF any other
1t was universally taken for granted that slave
remained slave, and freemen freemen, in
the new territories, until change was made
in their condition by some positive enactment.
Nobody believed that slave might not have
been taken to and kept in the Northwest Ter
ritory if the ordinance of 1887 or soma other
regulation had not been made to prohibit it.
The Missouri restriction OF 1920 was imposed
solely because it was understood (probably by
every member Of that Congress) that, in the
absence Of restriction, slave property would
be as lawful in the eyes Of the Constitution
above SO Q 30nln., as below; and all agreed,
that the mere absence Of a restriction did, in
fact, make it lawful below the compromise line
6. 1t is right to learn wisdom from our en-
emies. TIE Republicans do not point to any
express provision of the Constitution, nor to
any established rule Of law, which sustains
their views. The ablest men among them are
driven by stress Of necessity to hunt for argu-
ments in ccdo unrevoalei, unwrtten, and un-
defined, which they put above the Censt
or the Bible, and call it higher law" The
ultra abolitionists OF New England do not deny
that the Constitution is rightly interpreted by
the Democrats, as not interfering against sla
very in the Territories; but they disdain to
obey what they pronounce to be "an agreement
with death and covenant with hell"
7. What did Mr.. Douglas mean when he
proposed and voted for tho Kansas. Nebraska
bill repeating the Missouri restriction? Did he
intend to tell southern men that notwithstand
excluded from those Territories as much as
ever? Or did he not reglrd the right of mas.
ter to his slave perfectly good whenever he got
rid Of the prohibition? Did he, or anybody
else OF that time, dream that it was necessary
to make positive law in favor Of tho slave
holder before he could go there with safety?-
To ask these questions is to answer them. The
Kansas Nebraska bill was not meant as q delu-
sion or a snare. 1t was we'll understood that
the repeal alone Of the restriction against sla-
very would throw the country open to every
thing which the Const tuition recognizes as
property.
We have thus given what we believe 10 be
the opinions held by the great body Of the
Democratic party: namely, that the Federal
Constitution does not establish slavery any
where in the Union: TINT il permits a hlacl,