Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1859-08-26

transit 10 and from the territories. Now
tor the right or power to deal with itwhen
there and exclude it2 DO tho advocates Of
Popular Sovereignty" hold that Con.
grcss may exclude i, Certainly not.
Well, IL Congress has not the power to in.
hibii slavery, have the people Of tho terri.
tory ,ha, poworl TIE same authority
(Mr. Dousla') says:
81 hold that territory possesses whatev.
er power il derives from the Constitution
under the organic net and no more hold
that all the power \ Territorial Legislature
possesses, j. derived from the Constitution,
and it, anendmrnts under the act OF Con-
grcss."
Congress it will be seen is asserted TO
have no power to exclude or inhibt slavery
and tie territory no more than i' derived
under the act Of Congress" How much
is that? Of course no power directly to in.
hibit IL and none is pretended. What
then? II the master has the right Of prop
cr,y in his slave under the Constitution,
and the righ, OF transit into the territory,
aud neither Congress nor the people Of the
territory have power TO inhibi. or exclude
il, wha, rish, or power have the people Of
the territory, II any, to deal with il! Ii,
the same distinguished authority answer.
That It i competent for the National
Legislature, by the exercise Of the taxing
power. and other functions within the lin.
it, OF the Constitution to sdop, mfrimdiy
legislation, which practically drives slavery
out OF the territory"
That is to ay-tho territory hasno, the
constitutional right to exclude " slave prop
eriy which stand, upon an sg,al footing
with any other specie. Of property" but
It &. asserted 10 have the po,rrr through the
exercise Of the. " taxing power" Of impo-
sing inimical arbitrary taxation aud thereby
practically drirs om Starry, standing up.
on an equal footing with all other proper.
ty." Ifitwcrc no, obvious that this is but
piiful evasion, to escape from n respon.
sibiliiy which attaches 20 the concession
Of constitutional right Of property in
slaves, and - not entitled 10 a second
thought, the immortality OF the proposition
would not tail to stamp il crime wherever
the principles of justice or social duties are
recognized.
hut further says the same authority" |
am asked whether the Southern people have
not right. under the Constitution. TO
bring their slave. ihere1" 81 answer yes,
the same rish, that you have TO carry any
other property" Then You ask II they
have not right 20 hold IL there when they
rrt il ihcre2' answer Z" the same right
that YOU have to hold any other property.
Now upon this concession OF right, unless
you are to suppose the case Of people 81
lo-t to All sense OF justice and social duty
a. to deny AL protection TO the urh" Of
Tropuiy-risht- respected everywhere by
civilized man and sAyagr- even, hero is a
recognition Of ariehs ofproper'y and equal.
ity ofrishp, which removes all moral or
legal right TO object to it-invidiou.ly 90
discriminate a.,lin', it under tho " taxing
power" would bs tyranny and oppression.
twill be sccn that IN principle there Is
no essential difference in tho conclusions
which necessarily follow the positions OF
the two divisions OF the dominant party.
Both hold TO tho rights Of slave property
under the Con.,itution-to the rights OF
transit with il 10 and from the territories,
that neither Congress nor the territory can
exclude IL. 81 FAR they are agreed then,
only they diyerse. One claiming the duiy
Of protection to a conceded right. The 9th.
or asserting the pO,rcr OF uniriendly
legislation towards that right. Will the,
pcople OF ihi. State feel called upon to take
part in such a controversy
Does any man need to be told tha. both
these positions contemplate and adm, the
possibility Of the universally OF legal and
constitutional slavery in this country.
That II 1t be true that Ihc Constitution rec.
ognires property in slaves, and the right Of
transit to and from the territories with it,
/, follows as a legal and logical sequence,
that rs the c'Cons,itution is the paramount
law OF the nation, 1t ju-tihes slavery every
where, in State or territory, and tha, there
i. no power. in State or nation, short Of
amendment of the constitution which can
reach il. Slavery would thereby DO en-
throned as peculiar institution" en-.
dowed with peculiar rights and privileges,
and with the right TO protection Of the gov.
ernment, and might hold up the Constitu.
ton as 1t, protecting esi', and bid defiance
to the people OF the States or nation.
Between these parties the free states
should have no choice, can have none, GER
tainly not preference for the latter. The
one audaciously enough it is true asserts
a right aud demands recognition OF it by
adequate protection. The other timidly
admits the right and makes an unmanly Of.
fort to deny it protection. The statesman
who proposes thus and argues thus, it nee
hardly be stated, does no, even profess an
adequate remedy for the evil complained OF.
he does no, even profess to reach the point
OF difficulty. ], is not possible to reach i,
ia this way. The great question is tho
right Of property IN slaves, under the con.
sliiution, aud OF transit into the territories
and consequently tho right to hold that
property above the power of Congress or