Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1859-11-17
already free.'' Mr. Bates heartily endorses


freedom is the rule, and slavery the excep-
fion. He does not believe that slavery can
exist in any terrnory acquired by the Gov
ernment c: the Uuitsd, States, exeep, by
he pasitiue iassef Congress That positive
law Mr. Bates'~en'd not be in fsvor of pass
ing, because for ressons already given, he
is opposed to the extension OF slavery into
terTitorya,read, Tree.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN SLAVE Axb OTHER
PROPERTY CoEvAL WITH THE GOVERNMENT
If it he held tina. this exclusion of Slave
property from Territory "acquired hy the
common blood and treasure Of the Unien,''
establishes an invidous distinction between
two sections of the Union-ihat il denies
to the South rights thai are freely given to
the Nofth-Mr. Bates denies empiatically
that il has any such effect The distinction
complained OF is coeval with the Govern
ment. II is no new ihing-no modern
hatdship-in fac,no hardship at all. The
iocaiising of slavery-ihe prohibition of lis
emigrating and establishing itself in Free
Territory, was embodied in the compact of
of the Union, at the beginning. Blu. for
this limitation the Slave States got tar more
than an equivalera in being allowed in the
National Cpnavees.a6ain - prssidentiai eiec-
lions III ee cots for eoery fre slapes. Slaves
do not vote, but their masters vote for them
The votes Of tro me- n in the South count as
much as the votes of fire men in the Free
Staies.
CITIZENS OF NEW YORK POSSESSING KiGHT
OF PROPERTY NOT HELD BY vIRGINIAh.
Why should this be sol If slaves are
only property, as the Southern man will say,
why should not The Northern mans property
vote also. 1t is only property. When the
STAKEHOLDER is disposed to complain. there
fore that distinction is made against him
that he can't go into The common Terri
tory of the country and take his property,
the citizens of The free State can reply:
sit is not properly like my property that
you wish to take. but it is property that
votes, its property that gives you tteo and a
half sotes to my oEs-it is property that
makes me inferior 10 you. 10 our relations to
The Federal Cover nn.ent, and that is not
fair when we come TO occupy what has been
bought by "the common blood and treasure
of the Union"
This distinction between free property
and ave property is, as before stated, as
old as the Constitution i;sel!. II there were
no Territories at all, the same distinction
would exist. A citizen Of New York can
remove his domici to the State Of Ohio and
carry all his property ,rih him and hold it.
A citizen of Virginia cannot remove to the
State OF Ohio and carry all his property
with him and hold il. lie can't do il now
He couldn't do it ten years ago, nor twenty
years ago. nor at any time since Ohio exist
eG as State OF the Union. Why is this
so! Does no, the Constitution prevail
equally over all the Union! DOES not the
very language of the second section of the
IVih article OF the Constitution of the
United States declare that s.the citizens OF
each State shall be entitled TO all privileges
and immuni,ies ofkisizens n The several
States!"
SLAVERY IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE CON-
sTlTUTIos. BUT ONLY BY LOCAL LAW.
Yet we find that citizens OF Massachusetts,
possess, and have possessed for over .Dty
gears, certain privileges in the matter of
changing their dom miciles, which the citizens
of Virginia do not possess. The other can
not. And yet demagoaues would have South
ern men believe that no discrmina ton
against their property ought to exist, or erer
did e1tst, and TO enforce such discrimination
in the settlement OF new States would be to
establish distinction between certain clas-
ses of property which the South cannot, in
honor, submit to!
lf slavery cannot go into the Free States
and maintain Itself, why should it expect
to go into Free Territories and maintain
itself-there being IN neither case local laws
10 protect it! Is not the Constitution OF
the United States as vigorous, as compre-
hensive, and as just in Ohio as it is in Kan
sas. Does it not regard the property-the
vested riqhts-of all citizens, in all places of
the Republic, as equally sacred! If slavery
is nationalist it exists in the Constitution
i.self-how can the Constitution permit an
owner of such property to he despoiled of il
in Free State, any more than in Free
Territory? Can State be permitted to
nulkfy the rights oe man in property that is
recognised in the Constitution of the United
States--and the Fnderal Government have
no power to interfere! Of course not; for
the Constitution says that "the U. States
shall guarantee to every State Republi-
can form OF Government" But such a
State Government despoiling man of his
righ. would rot be Republic but Despotic.
1t is clear, that If slavery be the rule-if it
be nationalist it erists IN the Constitution.
and is carried wherever the Constitution
prevails-that MS IS sacred in Ohio as in
Kansas, and as firmly to be uphe!d in either,
as on the banks of the Sabine. Wherever
the flag of the Union floats, there every
citizen is entitled TO protection in all his
rights, that are National and Constitutional
Such would be the case with regard to slave
property, il slavery is national.
THE DISCRIMINATION NEVER THOUGHT A
HARDSHIP BY THE SOUTH.
But this not so. 1t is not claimed even BY
the South, and never has been, that slave
owner has right TO remove with his ne
groes to Free Stale. and call on the u.
States Government To protect him in his
property Yet his right to go to Free
State is as perfect, under the United States