Daily national Democrat., 1859-04-01

protection is to be called slave code then.
I ask if larceny, in general terms, were pun
ished by the Territorial law, and the Legisa
ture should except the larceny of slaves,
would he say he would submit to that at the
option of the Legislature?
Mr.. DoUGLAs. 1t is immateria to me wheth
er you call this legislation slave code, or
by any other name. | will call il by any
name the Senator chooses | wish to be un-
derstood, however, and to use such language
as conveys the idea. | take the language of
the Senator from Mississippi, if that is salts.
factory. All have to say, on the point pre-
sented by the Senator from Missouri, is this {:
while our Constitution does not provide rem.
edies for stealing negroes, it does not provide
remedies for stealing dry goods, or horses, or
any other species OF property. You cannot
protect any property in the Territories with
out laws furnishing remedies for its violation,
and penalties for its abuse. Nobody pretends
that you are going to pass laws of Congress
making a criminal code for the Territories,
with reference to other species of property.
The Congress of the United States never vet
passed an act creating Il criminal code for
any organized Territory II simply organi-
zes the the Territory, and leaves its Legi>la-
ture to make its own criminal code. Congress
never passed a law to protect any species of
property in the organized Territories; it
leaves its protection to the Territorial Legis-
latures. The question is, whether we shall
make an exception as to slavery The Sill
preme Court makes no such distinction. 1t
recognizes slaves as property. When they
are taken to a Territory, they are on an equal
footing with other property, and dependent
upon the same system of legislation. for pro
lection, as other property. While all other
property is dependent on the Territorial Leg
islature for protection. hold that slave prop
erty must look to the same authority for its
protection.
Mr.. GREEN. The Senator will permit me to
say that think he does not understand the
point presented, and therefore desire to
present it more explicitly. The Supreme
Court having decided that slaves constitute
property, if IA Territory, authorized by Con-
gress to legislate for itself, should pass law
Furnishing larceny of all property except
slaves would that make slaves equal to other
property in the Territory or would it not
be "A violation of the Constitution
Mr. DOUGLAS. If the Senator cannot un-
derstand my answer to that question by what
| have said, and the train of my argument,
it is useless for me to discuss it further. |
say that leave all kinds of property, slaves
included, to the local law for protection; and
that | will not exert the power of Congress
to interfere with that local law with refer
ence to slave property, or any other kind of
property. If the people think that particu-
lar laws on the subject of property are bene-
fetal to their interests, they will enact them.
If they do not think such laws are wise, they
will refrain from enacting them. They will
protect slaves there, provided they want
slavery; and they will want slavery, if the
climate be such that the white man cannot
cultivate the soil, so as to render negro
compulsory labor necessary Hence, it be
comes question of climate, of production,
of self-interest, and not a question of legis-
lation, whether slavery shall or shall not ex-
ist there
The Senator from Mississippi says he has a
right to protection The owner of every other
species Of property may say he has right to pIO-
lection. The man dealing in liquors may think
that, lnasmuch as his stock Of liquors is property,
he has "a right to protection. The man dealing in
an inferior breed of cattle may think he has
right to projections but the people of the Terrific
ry may think it is their interest 20 improve the
breed of stock by discrimination against inferior
breeds; and hence they may fix higher rate of
taxation on the one t. an on the other.
Mr.. BRowN. The Senator from Illinois now
makes point which enables ne to illustrate what
mean. | hold that the Territorial Legislature
of Kansas s-that being the Territory Immediately
involved in this discussion-has right to enact
the Maine Liquor Law This is an act of sover-
egntv. 1t has the right to say that liquors car
ried into the Territory shall be so used as that
they shall not corrupt the public morals nor en-
danger the public safety but the power Of prohi-
bition does not belong to a Territorial Legisla-
ture So say in reference to slave property As
| said in my opening remarks this morning while
| demand justice, will do justice. l hold that
a Territorial Legislature has the right to regulate
the relation between master and slave in such
manner that the master shall not permit the slave
10 endanger the public safety or corrupt the pub
lie morals. This is what | mean by the power to
regulate and not seeing the point nj which
court could intervene and arrest his power iii
were abused, | said it never would or rarely ev-
er, present a case which we could get before the
court and upon which we could demand its udg-
nent. BY this | understood the Senator from
Illinois to mean unfriendly legislation. that in the
exercise of its power to regulate the relation be-
tween master and slave, 1t could act with
such severity as efectually to exclude slavery as
though it were constitutional inhibition. That
is what meant.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. ! am willing to test this ques-
ton by the illustration the Senator presents ola
Maine liuuor law | shall not stop to inquire
whether the Maine liquor law is constitutional or
not; first bccqusa Congress is not the tribunal to
decide it; and secondly, because, by thespatiorm
to which the Senator from Mississippi aud myself
both stand pledged rs the rule for ourNpolltical :
action, it is provided that that question Shahmbe
sent to the court to testthe consttutonalty Of the
law, aud we shall not come to Congress to repeal
the law. When the Nebraska bill was first pend
ing in the Senate, it contained the Old clause that
the Territorial laws should be sent here, and, If
disapproved by Congress, should be void. The
discussion proceeded on the basis that we wee
comforting the whole power of legislation on r.
Territory, subject only the Constitution OF tH
United States, with the right in the TerrtorH
Legislature 'to form and regulate their domestic
institutions in their own way" and that if any
man was aggrieved by such legislation he should
have a right to appeal to the Supreme Court os
the United States to test its validity, but should
not come to Congress to repeal the obnoxious
law. When that argument was made. dStiq
guished Senator from Ohio, not now here, MA
Chase asked us why we kept that clause in the
bill recurring the laws ofthe Territory to be sent
here for approval or disapprOval? We could not
answer the inquiry, and hence we struck Outthe
provision requiring the Territorial laws to lie
sent here for approval or disapprOval upon the
avowed ground at the time that the Territorial
Legislature might pass just such laws as they
wanted, with the right of appeal by any one ag-
grieved to the Supreme Court to test their o0nsti
tntionaitv but not to Congress to annul them.
| undertake to say that this was the distinct un-
dersianding among the Northern and Southern
Democrats at that time, and among all the friends
Of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. TWAS agreed that,
while we might differ as to the extent of the pow
er ofthc Territorial Legislature on these questions
we would make full grant of legislative authori-
tv to the Legislature of the Territory, with the
right to pass such laws as they chose, and the
right of anybody to appeal to the court to decide
upon the validity and constitutonality of such
laws, but not to come to Congress for their annul-
ment Hence, if the Territorial Legislature should
pass the Maine liquor law, and anybody was dis
satisfied with the nrovisions of that act and