The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-11-04

legislature of Kansas Territory have at
different times enacted various laws upon the
subject of slavery. They have adopted
friendly and unfriendly legislation. They
have made laws for the protection of slave
property and repealed them. They have
provided judicial remedies and abolished
them. They have afforded ample opportu-
mites to any man who felt aggrieved by
their legislation, to present his case to the
judicial tribunals and obtain decision from
the Supreme Court of the United States
upon the validity of any part or the whole
of this legislation upon the subject of slavery
in that Territory. No man has seen prop
er to present his case to the court. No ter
ritorial enactment upon this subject has
been brought to the notice of the court. No
case has arisen in which the validity of these
or any other territorial enactments were in.
volved even incidentally. There was no
one point or fact in the Dred Scott case
upon which the validity Of territorial en-
actment or the power of territorial legis.
lature upon the subject of slavery could pos
sibly have arisen. In that case, so far as
the Territories were concerned, the only
question involved was the constitutionality
of an act of Congress prohibiting slavery
on the public domain where there was no
territorial government, and the court in their
decision very properly and emphatically
repudiated and exploded the doctrine that
Congress possesses sovereign power over
the subject of slavery in the Territories, as
claimed by Mr.. Buchanan in his letter to
Mr.. Sandford, and by the Republicans in
their Philadelphia platform. The bred
Scott case, therefore, leaves the question
open and undecided in respect to the validity
and constitutionality of the various legisa-
tive enactments in Kansas and New Mexico
and the other Territories, upon the subject
of slavery. Whenever case shall arise
under those or any other territorial enact
ments, affecting slave property or personal
freedom in the Territories, and the Supreme
Court of the United States shall decide the
question, I shall feel myself bound. in honor
and duty, to respect and obey the decision,
and assist in carrying it into effect in good
faith. But the Attorney General still per-
sists in his objection that the Territories
cannot legislate upon the subject OF slavery
for the reason that such legislation involves
the exercise of sovereign power. The Ter
ritory OF New Mexico exercised sovereign
power last year, in passing an efficient code
for the protection OF slave property Does
the Attorney General still insist that it is
unconstitutional? When he shall institute
judicial proceedings to test that question,
doubt not his friend Mr.. Lincoln will vol.
unteer his services to assist him in the
argument, in return for the valuable services
rendered him in the ILLINOIS canvass last
year, which involved this Identical issue.
Since l have had some experience in defend
ing the right of the Territories to decide the
slavery question for themselves, in opposi-
tion to the joint efforts of these distinguished
opponents of popular sovereignty, I am net
sure that would not volunteer to maintain
in argument before the Supreme Court the
constitutionality of the slave code of New
Mexico, even against such fearful odds.
But let us see upon what subjects the
territorial legislatures are in the constant
habit of making laws without objection from
the Attorney General or anybody else.
PROTECTION OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY.
The Territories are in the habit of enact
ing laws for the protection of the life, lib
erty, and property of the citizen, and, in
pursuance of those laws, they are also in the
habit Of depriving the citizen of life, liberty,
and property, whenever the same may be.
come forfeited by crime. The right and
propriety of exercising this power by the
territorial governments have never been
questioned. What higher act of sovereign
power can any government on earth perform
than to deprive citizen of life in obedience
to law of its own making? If liberty be
deemed more sacred than life, it is only ne.
cessary to remark that the Territories do,
in like manner, deprive citizen of liberty
by imprisoning him for term of years or
for life, at hard labor or in solitary confne-
ment, in compliance with the territorial law
and judicial sentence. Can anything short
of sovereign power lawfully deprive citi.
zen of his liberty, load his limbs with chains,
and compel him to labor upon the public
highways or within the prison walls for no
other offence than violating territorial
law? The property of the citizen is also
seized and sold by order of court, and the
proceeds paid into the public treasury as
penalty for violating the laws of the Terri
tory. If it be true that the Territories
shave no attribute of sovereignty about
them," the people of the United States have
a right to know from their Attorney Geue-
raj why he, as the highest law officer of the
government, permits, and does not take the
requisite steps to put stop to the exercise
Of these sovereign powers Of depriving men
of life, liberty, and property in Kansas,
Nebraska, New Mexico, and the other Ter.
ritories, under no other authority than the
assumed sovereignty of a territorial govern.
ment? 1t is no answer to this INQUIRY to
say that the sufferers in all these cases had
forfeited their rights by their crimes. My
point is that it requires sovereign power to
determine by law what acts are criminal
what shall be the punishment condi-