The Van Buren press., 1859-09-07
Protection to slaverv

The following extract is from the =,
Of Senator Bigler, of Pennsylvauja
cred in the United States Senate on ~
February, 1859, to-wit:
There is certainly very clear d;s,;.
between Intervention by Congress tnas
lish or abolish slavery in a Territory :"
you please. to influence, in any Wa. W.
question of its expediency. and the ey,. w
Of the power Of Congress to execute aI
established by decree Of cour, is
against all Congressional interference ).
courage slavery, or to extend. or to re,,.
or to maintain the institution ara. ?
the will of the people Of terri,e'-
We have agreed to leave all questions \,
may arise as to the institution, in tbo
ritories, to the people and the courts
If the rights of any citizen be serio,
impaired, his remedy is in the courts
not in Congress; but question NAV q,
executing an established right. There =,
be case in which whatever power rema,
to Congress should be exercised to ma.
tain the rights of the citizen as ascero,
by the courts. 1t cannot be denied tba, :.
Senator from Illinois, Mr.. Douglasl,
one time entertained the opinion that d.
an occasion might arise tor he held h.,
said that, in reference to Utah, such an :
igency had arisen, and that the law ora,
izing the territory ought to be repea.s
and thereby he claimed for Congress !,
highest degree of power ever pretended
by Congress and this for the reason that i,
Mormons would not obey the law or the 4.
cisions of the courts. A similar state
facts in any -othsr- Tassi. o..~ rsr;e,bs warm
similar remedy. Should the Legislature
Kansas confscate the property value Of Il
slaves now in the Territory, and the cour
should decide such an act unconstitutiona
would the execution of the decision Of ID
court be called Congressional interventje
for slavery ? Certainly not.
| l claim to stand on the Democratic pla
form, as defined in Baltimore and Cinci,
natl, on the broad doctrine of non -interye.
tion by Congress in the matter of slave,r
but l cannot close my eyes to the distinc,ia
between the action OF Congress to encor,
age Il policy, and the maintenance of Ii
lTjsh-s OF the citizen, as defined by the s.,
premc Coglt. But this point, more tn.
ANY other has oatiled my Judgment, ar
my iainI was to day dwelling upon the "
~ inquiry presented by the Senator f.or
Alaoama, (Mr. Clay, to- wit if the cit
zen Of a slaveholding State has a right,
decided by the Supreme Court, to take hi
slave into territory and possess him tLer
during the territorial existence, whtns
comes that right, and how can its enoymel
be destroyed by community not possesse
of the sovereign power?
What is a right that cannot be enioyei
but delusion and a fraud? The Supren
Court has held that right to repossess il
gitive slave is the owner ; but what i. tbs
right worth, unless the means Of execu;in
it be furnished by Congress? And what
the right of a citizen in a Territory worth
if it cannot be enjoyed? What does it a
vail to the citizen that he has the right, IN
der the decision of the Supreme Court, /
take his property into Territory, il IN.
jority may deprive him of the enjoymeI
and use of that property? There is Il
constitutional right unless it can be enoy
ed; the value of that enjoyment, it is tru
may be lessened by general public pole
or by popular prejudice it is too true til
the constitutional right of the owner to :
claim his fugitive is, in some instances, a
most destroyed in this way. 1t is for Il
courts, and not for Congress, to decide a
legal questions that may arise as TO ii
rights Of slave property in the Territorie
That is the Democratic policy but it is n
clear that a necessity will never arise t
the interference of Congress to execute
right decree Of the courts.