Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1859-11-17

would have Southern men beievet hat no discrlni-
atIon against their property ought to exist or erer
/ did erst, and that 10 enforce such discrimination
| IN the settlement of new States would be to estab-
/ lish distinction between certain classes Of prop
erty which the South cannot, in honor, submit tol
! If Slavery cannot 20 into the Free States and
maintain itself, why should it expect to go INTO
Free Territories and maintain itself-there beng
/ In neither case local laws 10 protect il? Is not
the Constitution OF the United States of vigorous
as comprehensive, and as Just in Ohio as It is in
Kansas? Does it not regard the property-fhe res-
ted rights-of all citizens, in all places of the Re-
public, as equally sacred? If Slavery is national,
If 1t exists in the Constitution iself-how can the
| Constitution permit owner of such property TO
be despoiled of II in Free State, any more than
IN Free Territory? Can State be permitted to
nullify the rights of man III property that is rec
ognized in the Constitution of the United States,
and the Federal Government have no power 10 in
terfere? Of course not; for the Constitution says
that ''the United States shall guarantee to every
| State Republican form of Government But
such State Government despoiling a MAJ. of his
! right would not be Republican, but Despotic.-
1t is clear, that if Slavery be The rule-if it he nc.
tOnai-if it exist, in the Constitution, and is car
red wherever the Constitution prevails-that il is
as s1cred in Ohio IN Kansas and as firmly TO be
/ upheld in either, as on the hanks of the Sabine
Wherever the flag of the Union doats, there every
citizen entitled TO protection in all his rights.
| that are National and Constitutional Such would
be the case with regard to Slave property, if Sa-
very Is National.
| Bti this IS not so. II is not claimed even bv
the South. and never has been, that a Slave owner
has right T. remove with his negroes 10 Free
State, and call on the United States Government
TO protect Inn IN his property. Yet his right 10
90 10 Free STATE Is as perfect, under the United
States Constitution, as i is 10 20 TO Free Ter
riory. Was Kansas acquired by '.the common
blood and Treasure of the Union?'' So was Iowa
and what right has Iowa, any more than Kan
sas, to discriminate against property so as to de-
priye the citizens of any portion of the Union Of
their National and Constitutional rights? This
discrimination against Slave property. as regards
emigration into Free States, we have thus shown,
has always existed, and never by the South been
thought hardship. And why? Because, per-
haps, the citizens of the Slave States felt that in
the privilege 10 r1te on their Slares, that species
Of property had obtained peculiar and tram
scendent advantage over all other property in the
Union, that more than compensated for its one
restriction, to-wi thai it should not enter into
and establish itself IN Free States.
If the South Is tired of this discrimination
against Slave property, which has existed since
the Government was established, and desires it
abandoned, then the South should propose TO a.
bandon, also, the privileges that such property
enjoys Surety IT is only fair that property should
III point OF tact, become equal before it CLAIMS
10 20 Us oGndi into The common territory of the
Union. " the South decline the one, how can it
fairly claim the Other?
MIR. BATES does not, therefore, regard the non-
admission OF Slasery INTO the Territories Of the
Union S ESTABLISHING distinction between pro-
peitr; but simply maintaining distinction al
ready established, willingly assented to by the
South 1t the formation OF the Government, and
ever since. II Is only at the instance of mIschie-
hot, II
10 change It's position, and abandon the literal and
the traditional compromises of the Constitution
AS true and upright citizen, who loves his
country's Weil-kept faith, as he does his own pri
vate honor, Mr.. Bates opposes the attempt OF
Southern fanatics 10 make Slavery overleap its o.
rignai nights. limitations, and relations to other
property Of the Union.
lnasmuch as the entire Democratic party or the
Free States are as decidedly opposed as even the
Republican party, 10 the extension of Slavery
over Territory previously free, il Is quite evident
III, Congress will never intervene 20 protect
Slave property in the Territories. Such beng The
fact, those Southern men, who object 10 Mr. Bates
as Slavery restriciionist might well ask Them
selves whether more Of honor or advantage is
gained by asking what cannot be had, and sub
mIitnS 10 the fatal necessity of denial and defeat:
or asking only that the present limits. PRIVILEGES
and guarantees of Slavery be maintained, and OBJ
tainIns ii with the cheerful and hearty concur
renee of nine-tenths of all parties in the Union
If the National Democracy offer more 10 the
South, we know they offer what they cannot
give, and do not mean TO try 10 give. The histo-
ryof Kansas Is too recent and too instructive, in
which we saw that the most violent Pro-sIaverv
Democrats, as they professed themselves, after
getting men and money from the South. by hun
dreds and by thousands, to save Kansas to he
South, suddenly became Free Democrats, when
they found success doubtful under Pro-slayery
banner, and sought Office as Free Democrats. un
blnshinsly declaring that Slavery never had been
an issue in Kansas The p, incple OF the Kansas
Nebraska bill, in the shape of SGuatter Sovereign
ty, has rendered the introdu,ti of Slavery i5to
Territories mpossi5! and the passage of that bill
is the work of National Democracy Mr.. Bates
merely holds as principle that which the De-
mocrccy have established fact. The question
of slavery extension is no longer before the peo-
PIE. II IS discussed now only as an abstraction.
IL Mr Bates does hot believe Slavery to be a
wise and auseful institution-if he Is opoosed TO
is extension into Territories already free-he new
ertheles: Just as firmly adheres TO the rights of
property in Slaves in all the States where slavery
exists, and will go just as far TO protect the rights
of States in that species Of property, as long as
those States choose 10 keep it, rs any man living
Mr. BATES believed in the unqualified right Of /
TIE owner 10 recover his slaves if they escape 10
a Free State; and if President. he would execute /
the Fugitive Slave Law, if the Army and the
Navy OF the Government were equal 10 the task. !
And if the Fugitive Slave Law should be repealed.
OF should be found inadequate to the service of |
absconding slaves to their masters, Mr..
Bates would urgently recommend to Congress to
pass some law that would mcre certainly and
more acceplably carry out the Constitutional |
guarantees OF the rights of Southern Shareholders.
lie would consider the Union broken colnpact. |
if these plain guarantees were denied by the de-
llberaie and perseserins action OF any part OF the
Confedei acy.
II Congress. clearly representing the win OF the |
country, should pass laws legalizing and protect
ing Slave property, in Territories previously Free,
Mr.. Bates would execute those laws as promptly
as any other laws OF the land. II a Territory
should organize into state, wife sufficient popu-
lation TO Justify its admission, and present Con-
stitulion tole ating Slavery, Mr.. Bates would not
oppose the admission of such State because il had
a pro-slavery Constitution.
HIS creed Is that every State has a right to say
how much it wants of African Slavery, and how
long II wants it, and how 10 get rid of it wh en- its
people tired of it. He does not regard it as a
perpetual Institution, but as in its very nature,
abnormal and esanescent, changing rapidly under
the influence OF climate, commerce, civilization,
religion, laws. He knows (and is glad to know.
IT'D that Missouri is rapidly becoming a Free
Stale: and he do not deDlore the fact that IL isi