Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1859-05-04
a Slave Code,

The article of the lgeiield 4idrcrtiser, in
another column says, "may not the propriety
of pressing the question of Slave Code for
the Territories be doubted ?" Who is pres
sing it, and what is Slave Code -? The
cant phrase of Douglas should not be adopted
No Slave Code for the Territories has been
asked of Congress- although under the Con-
stitution it could pass such laws for Terri.
tory, as the respective Southern States have
done to declare and project the eriStant and
rested rights Of masters, in their own limits.
What is the intervention by Congress
which is now clained2 To understand it, it
il necessary to revert to the fact, that the
Compromise of 1854 (tbe Nebraska Kansas
Act transferred the decision of all the con-
s,itutiunal and legal questions which might
arise OH slavery in connection wi,ha Terrific
ry, from tie legislative To the Judicial depart
ment oe the tlovernuent-frUm Congress to
the Supreme Court. tn effect this, the right
0i appeal tu the latter was given. Two other
! points must also be understood: first, that
the Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott
case, that Congress had no power to interdict
Slavery going to or existing in Il Territory,
and that when in the latter 4 slave remained
property second, that aS Congress had not
the power, it could not c,nier it or the right
of inlcriiclion upon Territorial Legislature
o: government.
Now we claim that the non-intervention
policy insisted on for Congress-, shall be EN-
forced by it on the TerriturieS-in other
words, that Congress shall by general law
prohibit Territorial Governments from legis-
iatimg against slavery. This will leave slave
property to go into the Territories as all
other species Of property do. If interfered
with there, sc that 1. legal question can he
raised. an. an appeal to the Supreme Court
j, taken, and that Court snstains the master,
and if it so happens that its decree cannot be
enforced by ordinary civil process, the inter-
ventiun asked, is that Congress shall pass a
general law providing for enforcement in such
cases. II, however, it is nteriered with by
legislative or official inimical action, then that
Congress hall proceed, if necessary to correct
the abuse, as it did, Oh other matters, against
Utah.
Now this Intervention is not passing a
slave code. 1t is but carrying out the Con-
sti,utiun, the authority Of the Court, and the
Ucsied individual civil rights 10 pasoa slave
cole, would he to provide specially all the
minute civil regulations in Territory proper
to protect the relations of master aud slave.
This is not asked, and if slaves be regarded
and estimated merely as property there, and
to cuue under the general laws as to all
property, it would not be needed. In such
case slave co'ls is no more desired than o
horre code. 1t is only in the event that the
inhabitants Of Territory discriminate be-
tween the species Of property. and to the in
jury Of slavery, that Congressional Interven-
tiun should be had. This has already been
done by the Kansas Legislature, by passing
law prohibiting slavery in that Territory.
Here is case in point. The lnterventionists
(we) require that Congress shall sbrogate
that law the n-lnteryentionists that Con-
gress shall not interfere. We say with the
Adrertiser, here is practical issue-lct us
60 before the country on it.-Charleston
Evening News