The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1859-10-12

OF thinking. They cannot help it any more than
an honest man IN the North can avoid abhor.
ring thief or housebreaker.
The jurists. Legislators, and the people OF the
Northern States, have always sacredly respect
ed the right ofproporty in slaves held by their
own citizens within their own jurisdiction. 1t
IS remarkable fact very we'll worth noticing,
that no Northern State ever passed any law 10
take negro from bis master. All laws for the
abolition of Slavery have operated only on the
unborn defendants Of the negro race, and the
vested rights Of masters have not been disturb
ed ia the North more than In the South.
In every nation under heaven, civilized. semi
barbarous, or savage, where slavery has existed
in any form analogous to ours, the rights OF
the masters to the control of their slaves as
property have been respected; and on no occa-
sion has any government struck at those rights,
except as it would strike at other property
Even the British Parliament when it emancp-
ated the West India slaves, though it was legs-
latlng for people three thousand miles away,
and not represented, never denied the legal or
the natural rights Of the slave owner. Slaves
were admitted to be property, and the Govern
ment acknowledged it by paying their masters
onehundred millions fdollars for the privilege
of setting them free.
Here, then, is species of property which is
oftrrnsendent importance to the material inter-
ests the South--which the people o that re-
gion think it right and meritorious in the eyes
of God and good men to hold--which is sane
toned by the general sense of all mankind
among whom it has existed-which was legal
only short time since in all the States Of the
Union, and was then treated as Sacred by eve
ry one of them-which is guaranteed to the
owner as much as any other property is guaran-
teed by the Constitution; and Mr.. Douglas
thinks that Territorial Legislature is compe-
tent to take it away. We say,no; tho supreme
legislative power Of sovereign State alone can
deprive man olhis property.
This proposition is so plain, so we'll establish
ed, and so universally acknowledged, that any
argument in its favor would be mere words
Mr.. Douglas does not deny it. and it did not
require thousandth part of his sagacity to see
that it was undeniable. He claims for the Ter
ritorial governments the right Of confiscating
private property on the ground that those gove,n-
n1ent ARE soVereign-have an uncomfortable and
indepe ndent power over their internal affairs.
That is the point which he thinks is to split
the Democracy and impale ths nation. But it
is so entirely erroneous, that 1t must vanish in
to shin air as soon as it comes to be examined.
Where does this sovereign authority to de-
priye men of their property come from? This
transcendent power, which even despots arc
cautious about using and which a constitution
al monarch never exercises-how does it get in.
to a Territorial Legislature? Surely it does
not drop from the clouds: it will not be con.
tended, that it accompanies the settlers, or ex-
lists in the Territory before its orgahization.--
Indeed it is not the people, but to the govern.
ment ola Territory, that Mr.. Douglas says i,
belongs. Then Congress must give the powe
at the same time that it gives the Territorial
government. But not word of the kind is tc
be found in an organic act that ever was framed
1t is thus that Mr. Douglass argument runs it.
self out into nothing.
But if Congress ~ouM pass statute express.
ly to give this sort OF power to the Territorial
governments, they still would save it; for the
Federal Government itself does not possess any
control over mems property in the Territories
That such power does not exist in the Federal
Government needs no proof: Mr.. Dougl as ad.
mits it fully and freely Itis, besides, establish
ed by the solemn decision Of Congress, by the
assent of the Executive, and by the direct rati
fcation of the people acting in their primary
capacity at the polls In addition TO all this
the Supreme Court have deliberately adjudged
it to be an unalterabla and undeniable rule Of
constitutional law.
This acknowledgment that Congress has nc
power, authority, or jurisdiction over the sub.
ject, literally oJHges Mr.. Douglas to give up his
doctrine or else to maintain it by asserting thai
power which the Federal Government doe
notpoSsess may be gfpen By Congress to the Ter
ritoria1 government. he right TO abolish AGri.
can slavery in Territory is not granted by the
Constitution to Congress; it is withheld, and
therefor the same as if expressly prohibited
Yet Mr. Douglas declares that Congress may
give it to the Territories. Nay; he goes further
and says that the aOant Of the power in Congress
is the Dery reason why it can delegate 1.-THE
general rule, in his opinion, being that Congress
cannot delegate the powers it possesses. but
may delegate such, "and only such, as Congress
cannot exercise under the Constitution" BY
turning to pages $50 and 52l, the reader will
see that this astounding proposition is actually
made, not In jest or irony, but solemnly, serious
ly, and, no doubt in per ect good faith Or
this pr inciple, as Congress cannot exercise the
p over to make an ca post factO law, or law i'm
pairing the obligation ofcontracts, therefore il
may authorize such laws to be made by the
town councils Of Washington city, or the levy
court Of the District. If Congress passes al
act to hang man wi thout trial, it is void, and
the judges will now allow it to be execute ID /;
but the power to dc this prohibited thing car
be constitutionally given by Congress to Terri
torial Legislature!
We admit that there are certain powers be-
slowed upon the General Government which
are in their nature judicial or executive. e.--Wi It'll
them Congrese can do nothing, except to SCI
that they are executed by the proper kind o
officers. 1t is also true that Congress has cer-
tain legislative powers which canot be delega