New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-09-15
THE LAW on OUx siDF.

elaborate article B-crIbct By some 10 AVo''-'
General Black, aud By Others to TIE PIesden' udi-
nlf sssi.t.d by james Gordon Bennett esaf
in answer to Mr Dougl,s'' r-c-nt msofe''o
in Hsrper's Magazine on the subject II Slavery Ia
the Territories. Without interfering in the con
troversy between SIR Dougl.s ard BIZ Democrats
coHp.triots upon this deic.'e sueect-s sf'iAibs
illustration by the w,y Of the @irrepres'ioe
character Of tie Slavery cotfIct since II IS mus
able TO set even good Democrats b. the ears-"e
must take Il liberty TO OBJECT to certain assertions
in tnis article having q bearing upon the doc
trines ard views Of the Republican psrty "lbe
" Republicans Gays this writer "do rot point 20
any express. provision Of the Constitution nor 10
Spy general principle embraced IN il, nor 20 any
established ruie cf tin which sustNns Their
"yieus" In reference 20 the ordinance OF EoI,
ard the Missouri restriction, he asserts tbN NJ
- BODY believed that slave might not aave been
taken 10 aud Kept in the North IVES. Territory
"if III. ordinance Of l7-7, CT some ot,er regIl,
ton bsd not been m.de to prohibit IT," while ths
Miss, nj restriction of leo. is alleged t. haze been
imposed ,olely because it underItood, proo'oly
by every Member of Congre,s, that 10 the ao-
sence Of such restriction, slave property migh'
have been lawfully introduced iato the ter
ritory embraced in that prohibition.
We know not of any ruls Of law more fully es-
tabhshed thsn the do.trine that Slavery, wherever
it exists exists only by the force Of local law. Il
is upon the strength Of this We'll established rule
that the Republicans utterly deny the doctrine main
,sneo in The Constitution that because Nirginian
under the laws Of that State is entitled in Virgins
10 treat men, women and children as property,
therefore he is entitled TO t.he them into Ter
Titory where DO laws of thst sort exist, and still to
hold. work and fog them ust as il ne were still 10
Virginia The prohibition of Slavery in the orii-
nance Of III vas not inserted unler the sppre-
hens;on that without such prohibition Slavery
would be lawful there, bat in order to presen: It's
being introduced sab sHentio aud then made law
full at some future time by express acts OF Leglsa-
tion. A similar motive led TO the adoption of
the Missouri prohibition Of l-2O, for which also
there existed this additional reason; that it was
necessary TO meet the claim ia favor ct the legal
itv Of Slavery which might be urged under the old
Spanish lava doctrine get up and zeaou-y
maintained in the course OF the debate on the
question of admitting tie State OF Missouri with
sSve constitution.
In place of this old ADD well established rule of
law relied upon by the Republicans as sufficient 10
itself alone 10 prevent the Introduction OF Slavery
into new Territories, snd sffoTdios an ample ba-
sis for declarstory legislation by Congress to tnat
effect. The writer Of The Constitution undertakes To
set up the noyel doctrine tina! sl.venociDg is legal
l., L., int ,iu al nd h.d
in every Territory where there are no express laws
to the contrary. Having thus got his slaves into
the Territory, lie proceeds further 10 argue thst,
being property, neither Congress nor the Terrific
Iia Legislature have any right to confi.c,te tina:
proIeIty-tbe Constitution prohibiting Congress
from deprving any person of bis property, or from
taking private pr perry for public uses without just
cOnpepsation-on i. no! beipg hing TO be sup
posed that Territorial LIE sislature should have
power of confscsting private property, which tue
State Constitutions do net allow 10 tie States, n}r
the Federal Constitution to Congress. Even II We
were 10 grant tie full force OF this argument, it
evidently could apply only TO slaves introduced
into Territory before any prohibi,ige leg.lat on.
I. would no. stand at all in the way Of prohibtise
=
even this limited effect to the argument i. is neces
ssry to assume as la the doctrine-ss novel IS it
is crourdess, doctrine never heard Of nor
thought OF TIL within this ten years Past-the doe
trine namely, that the possession of slaves is just
as much entitled TO be respected 90 grounds Of
comfy as is the possession OF cattle or horses.
The article upon which We are comm;Iting
seems to admit that when at length q Territory
comes TO be State, it may then take the subjec'
in RAND and prohibit AID abolish Slavery. But il
such prohibition is to be placed on the ground
of copfscation of property, hsT can thst be 1t
is part othe very argument Of the writer that for
u Territorial Legislature to confiscate property
would be 10 exercise power which under The
State Constitutions is prohibited to tie S'ate.
In fact he himself expressly tells US that Lesis-
latiye Robbery and such, according to b. idea,
this abolition Of Slavery would be- Is crime |
" hich car not BE- committed either b. Congress or
"apy state Legislature unless it be done Il fat
" rebellion to the fundamental Law ci ths land"
The consequence then would seem to iolloT thst |
Slavery, once introduced into Territory, never |
could be got rid Of since the bug5ear Of tue Con-
f.cstion OF property would be just as svail,be 10
prevent State as to prevent Territorial Legislation.
II is an ingenious method of appealing to Southern
prejudices and slave-tolding fears, 10 attempt 70
copfvund, as this writer does the question o. The |
sbolition Of Slavery in States where II aheafy |
exists, with the question Of preventing Us INTO
duction into ncw States. II the Nugiaii slave |
holder Wil ramhIu at home he will BE- allowed So