The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1859-02-25

latnre might rroagfHy adopta great many malicious
measures injurious to slave aud all other property
il would be a proposition not worthy of notice on
comment. But this is not the purpose of that sena.
tor. He intends to go sti!l further, and affirm what
he asserts in argument that 10y the exercise Of the
taxing power, and the withholding Of all remedies
for the recovery or holding of slave property, ter
ritoral government may legally and constitutionaly
exclude it, That is while lac denies to Congress the
power to adopt the Wilmot proviso. he maintains
that Congress may create inferior agency terri
toria council with more power than Congress- and that
the creature may constitutionally exercise power
inhibited To the creator by that compact, In other
words, that Congress- may confer another more
legislative power than il possesses of itself Such
proposition needs only to be stated Its absurdity
is too manifest for argument 1t is fully met 10y the
decision of the DEED Scott case. That decision de-
cares that the Territories are common fund, open
to all the citizens Of the United States TO take their
property there slaves as well as all other II de-
MES the power of Congress-, or a territorial egisla
ture, to exclude slaves other property, Speaking
of these powers and others, the court say " 1t is
total absence of power anywhere within the domin-
ion of the United States, and places the citizens Of
Territory, far these rights are concerned, on
the same footing with citizens Of the Safes aud
guards them as firmly and plainly against any nroads
which the general government might attempt under
the plea of implied incidental powers. And if
Congress itself cannot do this if it is beyond tho
powers conferred on the federal government it will
be admitted, we presume that it could not authorize
territorial government to exercise them. 1t could
confer power any local government, established
by its authority to violate the provisions of the con
sttution.'
The principe of the decision is accurately stated in
the syllabus of the case thus Every citizen has
a right to take with him into the Territory every
article of property which the constitution Of the
United States recognises property. The consti-
tuition Of the United States recognises slaves as prop
erty and pledges the federal government TO protect
it; and Congress cannot exercise any more auhori-
ty over property Of that description than may con-
sttutionally exercise property Of any Other
kind" The goes still further, and declares
that neither Congress territorial Legislature
possesses any power to destroy private property, or
even take it for public use, without making Just
compensation
If territorial Legislature cannot destroy slave
property by direct legislation, exclude il from the
common territory any enactmcnts framed with that
object would be equally unconstitutional and pro
nounced void by the Judicial department of the gov
| ernment. The constitutional law OF Mr. Douglas ia
bad and the spirit with which he invites the terri
| torial s'ihorilies to exclude slave property still
worse as in direct conflict with The decision of the
Supreme Court, and grossly unjust to the whole
South and all its citizens. OF what practical import
is it the South whether the Wilmot proyiso is APP
Piled by Congress itself territorial agency crea.
ted by the federal legislature
Mr. Douglas argues that there can be no remedy
is furnished by its Legislature, and some extreme
southern appear anxious to asten upon this idea
affordng ground for further legislation and fresh
food for agitation. AS legal proposition it is
manifest iallacy The constitution gives the rightto
hold slaves in Territory Then, there is as much
law to slave a horse, and il is even less
in the power of the legislature to destroy the prp
erty by taking away the remedy If tho constitution
guaranteed property in horses, what lawyer would
say that act of the Legislature prohibiting The
courts from entertaining actions for the recovery Of
that species Of property cond be sustained con-
sttutional The right being admitted, the court
would apply the remedy. According to wellset-
tied rules, the people who carry the property and
the right would take The ordinary remedies incident
to the right as part Of the law
" II IN uninhabted country is discovered and planted
by British subjects, the English laws said to be i'm
me,atey in force there for the law is the birth light
of every subject that wherever they 60 they carry
their laws with them and the new-found country
governed by them Story Const., lj2, d. Com,
1917
All well informed juriss admit the existence Of
common law in the colonies in relation To slavery
Mr.. Ilurd at page 206 of his able book, Law Of
Freedom and Bondage, says :" 1t was jndicially re-
garded as resting natural reason indicated in tho
law Of nations historically known al that period, tho
common law of the world, applied in international
and municipal law because indicating the viii of the
supreme of law having the territorial jurisdic-
ton, whenever not disallowed by some more direct
exposition Of that will"
In Siye Us. Chritien, Martin, p. 275, the supreme
court of louisiana say " 1t is admitted primer
pie that slavery has been permitted and tolerated IN
all the colonies established in America by the mother
country. Not only Of Africans, but Of Indians NO.
legislative act of the colonies be found IN ref
ton to it,
u 4