Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-06-21
OF correct, and will give YOU little evidence

, not correct, and will give YOU little evidence
upon that point shall no: dctain you by
| reading long documents. but will refer you TO
facts within the recollection Of all present. In
the first place, the language Of the Kansas
Nebraska bill is. that non-intervention first APP
piled by the compromise measures of 1870. is
| the true doctrinc--that Congress will not le.s.
late slavery into territory or outefa territory.
We leave that question TO the people, SUBJECT
to the Constitution Of the United States. \
provision was then made by which the question
of slavery or no slavery could be carried to the
Supreme Court Of the United States will
explain it. Under the law As il stood up to that
time, the AMOUNT in controversy to entitlc
party appeal to the supreme Court had 10 be
two thousand dollars. 1t was seen that in
; very few cases where the question Of slavery
was concerned there would bc the right to take
an appeal, bccailSc the amount in controvcr.
" would not be sufficient, and they thus
changed the law with regard 10 the amount
where the question Of slavery Or personal free
dom WAS involved 1t was supposed. North
aud South, that whatever the decision Of the
Court was on anv case which thus came under
it's Jurisdiction. it would bc adhered to and main
tanned. Ia good faith the Court pronounced
csce in the decisions of the Court but il is also
said that the territory can. by legal means.
abolish slavery therein. 1t is decided i'll the
Court that under the Constitution the people
Of Missouri, and every other Southern State,
have right to take slaves into a territory. and
that il docs not work tic freedom Of the slave.
That they have rjghh to hold them there
and mistaken friends, (f0r friends may be ms,
taken as we'll a. cneinieS, contend that the ic
gisaurc Of the territory may. by legal nc.iS.
prohibit it, ] ask; at this point of the recital,
was it supposed by any man, when they sue
ceedcd in inducing Congress not 10 intcrpo>e
To prohibit or establish slavery, that they
were only transferring il TO Il territory: Hy
no means. On the contrary, they supposed
they We're Inducing Congress to stand ol-not
to establishment 10 prohibit; and the con>titu-
tional question being decided, all would bow
to it. and no authority could set aside the Con
Stituion of the United States. Why. to state
the proposition is its own answer That any
subordinate tribunal in the land could. by legal
mcanS, nullly constitutional right, Is All al.
surdity that ought to strike any man who will
reflect upon the subject one moment BY lc-
ga means and subordinate authority destroy
the existence Of constitutional right y boy
ten years old could reply 10 that argument
All we have meant by non.in,crvcntion Is that
wt will not touch a;y branch Of the subject
Of establishing or prohibiting slavery. The
Southern States have not demanded slave
code Of Congress, and the little debate that has
taken place III the Senate was all supcrinduccd
from the beginning to the termination by
Northern men first saying that by l|g"i m.oHs
the territory can abolish slavery; my objection
to that doctrine was that it was erroneous, and
amounted to IN invitation to territories to de
stroy orr constitutional rights. When we
know tie character Of persons sent into the
territories by the Emigrant Aid Society. We
NAV not be surprised that the construction
given by them to the Constitution amounted
10 an ivitaton to 90 into the territories and ap
ply it to suit themselves. Up to that period
of time no Southern man asked the lntcrpo>i.
ton Of Congress. If the protection Of existing
rights, as have said with regard 10 Utah. re-
quircS the intcrpoSition Of Congress, and II such
protection cannot be otherwise obtained, will
vote in favor Of Congress vindicating the
rights Of the people. Otherwise the rights OF
the people would be overthrown through the
neglect Of schcnins politicians and aSpirantS
for Office Those rights have been obtained ut
the eypcnsc of too much blood and treasure
and their maintenance is TOO essential to the
peace and harmony Of society; and no patriot
ought to wink at the destruction Of any right.
however humble the individual. however poor
and obscure he may be. To show the absurdi-
Is Of one Of the arguments, will rc!cr you To
this fact They say the platform of the party
means non-intcrventi0n: that the eHtir SHdyert
of slavery is to bc let alone. The language oi
the bill is non.interiercnce, as settled by the
compromise measures of 1850. Those mca-
sures did not prohibit slavery in the territory.
But, after organizing certain territories Con-
greSs passed the fugitive slave bill as one OF
the compromise measures OF 1870. les, the
fugitive slave bill Of 1850 interfering with
the subject of slavery: it Is most ungn.N-
tlonablc that this was Interference with the
subject Of slavery in the States ami IN the ter.
ritorics: and when the kan>aS-NcbraSka b!iI
was passed in Isl /, there was {" special section
put in APPLYING the fugitive slave bill oil $500
TO the territories Of kalisaS and Ncbr;sk'.
ask the question. if the arguments ol these
gentlemen were correct, Congress could not
touc. the SyJjtct of slavery. But the very re-
ference in which the doctrine Of non.intcHcn-
ton is announced. proves that the SUBJECT oi
slavery was attached to these measures them
selves. And when the Kansas Nebraska bill
was passed it was done again, and provision
made to protect the rights Of Shareholders in
case of fugitive slaves.
Nyw. fcllow.citizens, it is Constitutional
right of any owner Of slave TO recaptnrc his
fugitive wherever he may find him. The su'
prcnc Court has saidit Is Il Constitutional right
to take your slave into 4 Territory and hold
him there. In case of the fugitive, Congress
has given YOU additional aids to make your
rights secure and effective. Now, if similar
necessity should exist, to make Your rights IN
the Territories secure and elective. has not
Congress the same right to do 1t: They are
both Constitutional rights they are both 10
secure your rights Of property. In the one
case Congress has interviewed. You have thc
right to your property without Tie intervention
of Congress, but physical force Is not the only
reliance OF the American people for security;
They appeal to the tribunals OF justice, and
where YOU may hold your own slave II there
should be no other remedy. Before i'c' they
needed no law to enable Il man to recover h'S
fugitive slave. There was an honest sentiment
peryading the entire Union then-thcre was
patriotism. there was dispo> ton to see the
Constitution carried out, and the rights oi the
people protected under ii.
But from 1889 to lI?3 there began 10 DC
some intlnnation that physical force would be
resorted to to defeat that portion OF the Con
s,i,ulion to recover fugitive slaves. During
the administration Of President Washington
in 1898, the first las was passed to give You
additional means to make your right effective
bv that Constitution. That law did well for
manv wears, but after while distractions were
made. They sought to avoid that law. 1t was
after this constitutional right could not he So
cured tina; additional! legislation was had Then,
in 1850. Congress lcgiSlated again on the sub
ject and gave additional aids, increasing the pc
nalty for lis violation. appointing officers to
secure fugitiycS and take them 10 the State
from whence they fled. refer to this, for the
purpose of showing yon that Congrcs-, to
carry out and secure one right. has intcrvenc'l,
by the principles of common right and com