New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-11-14
Aetp1)ork Daily Ga-ibn,le
THE SLAVERY QUESTION.
AUTHORITATIVE EXPOSITION OF THE Pc
SITI0N OF EDWARD BATES.

Of EDN AhD DaiES.
FREEDOM THE RuLE-sLAvERY THE EXCEPTION.
Fro-s The Sc LOui, Ercnisg Ne,cs. Noe.
Some of the Opposition papers of Missouri The 81.
Josepk Vast AMONG theml, while admitting the inde-
eeney Of private citizens who suppose themselves cam
ddaes for the Presidency, thrustng their opinions on
all questions, masked the country, nevertheless
appear TO think that the OF Edward Bates is an
exception They claim that Mr.. Bates stands promi-
nently before the country possible candidate for
the Presidency and that the anxiety of Mssourns is
80 grea, declare in favor of him. his views on the
Slavery question are acceptable 10 them, that Mr..
Bates oncht make public his views that sub
iect at least. Otherwise many citizens after commit
ting themselves TO his support might find themselves
in a false position.
There will be no occasion for any citizen ever feeling
any embarrassment on Mr.. Bates account. He is not
candidate for the Presidency and will not seem, by
publishing letters masked and the most trt-
ling occasion, to be counting attention to his views
But if Mr.. Bates should be made a candidate by the
authoritative voice of his countIymen, he will obtain
no vote upon false pretenses. He viii stand upon no
iueele ike the Cincinnati Platform, wthts ambiguous
and double readings. The country will know his po-
sition on all questions mantesty in letters of living
light. Till then, Mr. Batess views of Slavery will
not probably be more formally set forth.
But as The EreRiag Ncrs,. several months ago,
presented the name of Mr. Bates the vore of the
ST. Louis Oppostonsts for the Presidency, it is rea
sonably to be supposed that we had sufficient know
ledge of his opinions, this and other Subjects 20
Justify the nomination of him. Ii may be that we
know enough of his views even now, to satisfy the
more importunate querists in the natter The follow
ing are what, we sure, will be found to be the
views of Edward Bates on the Slavery Question;
SLAVERY soT BENEFICIAL SOCIALLY, POLITICALLY or
RELIGIoUsLY.
Mr.. Bates does not believe that African Slavery is
the cornerstone of Liberty" He does not believe
that African Slavery is beneficial institution, either
in social political, religions Not in social
sense because it sets at naught the family relation ana
separates and wife, parents and children, at the
carice or on the necessities Of owners; not in polti'
cal sense because is productive Of dscords between
nations that tolerate H. and nations that do not, ana
because II liable 10 pancs CONNEXIONS Instructions
and massacres and has ended often in bloody revolu
tons; not in religious sense. because II shuts the
mind against knowledge, makes the word OF God
sealed book TO the slave, and gives his body to the
service Of human MASTER whereas the body Of every
created being should be freely given TO the service VI
God.
ITS EXTENSION UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXCEPT By AFFIR-
NATIVE LEGISLATION.
Decause Mr.. Bates does not believe that Slavery Is
beneficial institution, either in social, political, or
religious sense he is unditerdby opposed to ats ere-
sior into Territories already free. Mr. Bates, in his
political creed, is Henry Clay Wing; and Mr. Clay
declared that his " right arm should drop from his
shoulder before he would vote TO extend Slavery
over one foot of territory already free" Mr.. Bates
heartily ndorses that sentiment and holds 70 that
creed.
Mr. Bates does not believe that the Constitution, by
lis proper veor carries Slavery into all the Territories
that may be acquired by the United States. He be-
ieves that Freedom is the rule and Sayerythe excep-
ton He does not believe that Slavery can exist in
any Territory acquired by the Government Of the
United States except by the p0sttge lac Of Congress
That positive law Mr. Bates wofh not be in favor OF
passing because for already given he ID OPP
posed to the extension OF Slavery into territory a-
ready free.
DIsTISCTIoS BETWEEN SLAVE ASD OTHER PROPERTY
CoEyAL WITH THE GOVERNMENT.
Ii il be held that this exclusion Of slave property
FROM territory acquired by the common blood and
treasure of the Union" establishes nvidlous dis
tuction between two sections Of the Inion-that II
denies to the South rights that freely given to the
North-Mr. Bates denies emphatielily That mas any
such effect. The distinction complained OF Is coeVai
with the Government. II is no new thing-no modern
Lardship-n fact hardship at all. The tocoiiStHg
OF Sayery--the prohibition OF its emigratlng and
establishing itself in Free Territory embodied in
the compact of the Union at the beginning. But Tor
this limitation the Slave States got far more than an
equivalent in being allowed in the National Congress
and In Presidential elections tire rOtes for ererytre
slares Slaves do not vote but their masters vote tor
them The votes of ficO men in the South count as
much as the votes of fcc men in the Free States.
cIrIzEs or sEw-YoRK PossEssISG RIGHT OF PROP
ERTY NOT HELD BY A yIRGISiAs.
Why should this be so II slaves are only property,
ar the Southern man will cay, why should not the
Northern mans property vote also IL h all only
prOpertg. When the stakeholder Is disposed TO CON-
plain therefore, that distinction Is made against nun
that he can't go into the common territory Of the
country and take his DrOperythe citizen OF the free
State can reply: IL if not property Ike my property
that YOU wish to take bat il Is property that cofes
il property that gives you tro-aHd-dhdD cotes - my
- tk.f g.IsF IN uyll IN
our relations to the Federal Government, and that Is
not fair when come 10 occupy what has been
bought by the common blood and treasure OF the
UniOn.'
nroperty il AZ before stated az old the Constitution
itself II there were Territories at all, the same
distinction would exist. A citizen Of New-York can
remove his domcil TO the State Of Ohio, and carry az
he yooeyfy nth Inn and lOid H. citizen Of Nir-
piui cannot remove 10 the STATE Of Ohio and carry all
bis property with him aud holdt. He can't 90 II now
He couldn't do il ten years ago, nor twenty year, ago.
nor al any time since Ohio existed as STATE IN the
I'rion. Why il this SOL Does not the Constitution
prevail equally over all the Union Does not the very
language OF the second Section OF the fourth Article OF
the Constitution of the United States declare that tne
citizens Of each State shall be entitled 20 all the pry-
"ileeee and INN auities Of citizens in The several
SiatesP
But OsLY By LOCAL LAW.
Yet we find that citizens Of Massachusetts, possess,
and have possessed for over ftty gears, certain
privileges in the matter Of changing their domelles,
which the citizens Of Virginia do not possess One
can 90 to Ohio and carry his property and keep H. re
Other cannot And yet deInagogues would have South
ern men believe that no discrimination against their
,rooerz ought to exist or ecer did erts and that to
enforce such discrimination in the settlement Of
states would be 70 esaJl,sA distinction between GER
tain classes OF property which the South caunos. IN
honor, submit 10
II Slavery cannot 20 into the Free States and man
tain iiself why should il expect to 90 into Free leri-
tories and maintain sef-there being in neither case
local laws protect II l. not the Constitution OF the