The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-03-17

The Supreme Court makes no such distinc-
ton. II recognises slaves a property
When thsy are taken 10 a Territory, they
are on an equal footing with other property,
and dependent up0s the same system Of leg.
islatiou, for projections, - other property.
While all other property is dependent 90
the Territorial legislation for protection, |
hold that slave property must look to the
same authority for It's protection.
Mr.. GREES-The Senator will permit noe
10 say, that think b. docs not understand
the point presented, and therefore desire
to present il more explicitly. The Supreme
Court having decided that slaves constitute
property, il Territory, authorized by
Congress TO legislate Tor itself, should pass
law furnishing larceny Of oil property ex-
cept slaves, would that make slaves equal
to other property in the Territory or
would il not be violation Of the constitu-
ton
Mr.. DoUGLAs-lf the Senator cannot IN.
derstsnd my answer to that question by
what have said, and the trsin Of my ar
gumest, ii 10 useless for me To discuss it
further. say that leave all kinds Of prop
erty. slaves included, 10 the local law for
protection and that ! will not exert the
power OF Congress TO interfere with that
local law with reference to slave property,
or any other kind Of property. IL the poo
pie think that particular laws on the sub
ject OF property are beneficial to their inte-
rests, they will enact them. II they do not
think such laws are wise, they viii refrain
from enacting them. They will protect
slaves there, provided they want slavery; and
they will want slavery, II the climate be
such that the white man cannot cultivate the
soil, 80 ~ 10 render negro compulsory Ia.
Dor necessary. Hence, it becomes question
Of climate, Of production, OF selfinterest,
and not question of legislation whether
slavery shall or shall not exist there.
Bat 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 protection. The man dealing
in liquors may think that, inasmsch as his
stock Of liquors is property, be has right
TO protection. The man dealing 10 an in.
ierior breed Of cattle may think he has a
right to protection but the people OF the
Territory may think IL 10 their interest 10
improve tho breed Of stock by discrimina-
ton against inferior breeds and hence they
may Ak higher rate Of taxation on the one
than on the other.
Mr.. BRowN. Tho Senator from Illinois
now makes point which enables me TO H.
lsstrate what | mean. hold that the Ter
ritorial Legislature oil Ksnsas-that being
the Territory Immediately involved in this
discussion-hss no right to enact the Maine
Liquor Law. That is an act Of sovereignty.
II has the right TO say that liquors carried
into the Territory shall be 80 used a. that
they shall not corrupt the public morals,
nor cndanger the public safety but the
power VI prohibition does not belong to =
Territorial Legislature. So say 10 refer
snce to slave property. As ! said In my
opening remarks this morning. while | de-
mand Justice. will do justice. hold that
. Territorial Legislature has the right to
regulate tho relation between master and
slave 10 such manner that the master shall
not permit the slave to endsnger the public
safety nsr corrupt the public morals. That
is what mean by the power to regulate
and not seeing the point at which a court
could intervene and arrest this power II it
were abused. l said IL never would, or
rarely ever, present case which we could
get before the court and upon which we
could demand its Judgment. In this under
friendly legislation that in the exercise oil
its power, TO regulate the relation between
master aud slave, il could act with such Sc
verify AZ efiectuaIly to exclude slavery as
though it wire q constitutional inhibition
That is what meant
Mr.. DovoLAs am willing TO test thi,
question by the illustration the senator pre-
sents OF Maine liquor law. shall no,
stop to inquire whether the Maine liquor
law is constitutional or not first. because
Congress il not the tribunal 10 decide II
and secondly, because, by the platform t.
which the Senator from Mississippi and my
self both stand pledged, ~ the rule Tor oul
political action, it is provided that thai
question shall be sent to the court to tss
the constitationality Of the law. and ",
shall not come TO Congress TO repeal tn,
law. When the Nebraska bill was frs
pend ng in the Senate, it contained the OLD
clause that the Territorial laws should b.
sent herr, and il dsapproved by Congress
should be void. The discussion procccde,
on the basis that We were comforting tn,
whole power OF legislation on the Territory
subject only to the Constitution Of III,
United States with the right in the Terri
torial Legislature Ito form and regulate
their domestic institutions IN their own way;
and that il any man was aggrievei by sucl
legislation. he should have u right TO appea
to the Supreme Court Of the United State
to test its validity, bu, should not come II
Congress 10 repeal the obnoxious law
When that argument MAS made, . dlstin
gulshci Senator from Ohio. not now herr
Mr., Chasr asked Us why w KEEP, tina
CLAUSE in the bill requiring the laws Of tn
Territory 10 be- sent here for approval o
drsapprovsl! We could no, answer the IN
Qairy, and hence We struck out the provis
ION requiring the Territorial laws 10 be sen
here for approval or disspproval, upon tn
l.. al -