Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-04-05
For the Enquirer.
THE YAHsAsHEBRAsKA BILL.
FEBRUARY 2sth, 1859

lbbhIhNh SSNt iSOS'
The views intended to be taken on the Sen
ate debate of the 23d instant, respecting the
Kansas legislation of Congress, and the Presi,
dent who sanctioned il, are not quite finished
in INV last letter, as desired 10 be urged at this
time in simplicity and plainncss.
In some review of a certain letter OF Senator
jeff. Davis, during the last summer, which l
presented through the Examine when it
was edited by mvsexcellent friend DEWITT, IT
was insisted that the South in Congress had
surrendered the rights of the South in the ter.
ritories of Kansas and Nebraska, and that ii
the same policy which had thus secured "a bad
eminence," was to bc pursued as an example,
there would, in all probability, If not certain
IL. never be another slave State admitted into
the Union. The surrender consisted in the
policy of non.intcrvention as inausurated by
the Kansas Nebraska act Of 1854. As far as the
General Government could, by the action ofits
legislative and executive coordinate depart
mcnts, ndid take from the slaveowning and
slave carrying immigrants from the slave
holding States into the territories, their rights
of property as intended TO be secured by the
Federal Constitution. That legislation distinct
" transferred the right Of the slave-owner for
protection of his property. to the rule of
the majority in the territory; and restricted his
attempt at redress of any outrage there of his
rights, by the majority, to an appeal, by him,
if he might work it out through the difficulties.
DELAYS and costs Of litigation, to the Supreme
Court of the United States. Such was the
purpose and the accomplishment Of the Kan.
sas- Nebraska Act Of the General Government,
organizing those territories. If such aim of
the organic &C, be questionable, in the interpre.
ting Of its expressions, it is, nevertheless. in
controvcrtiblc in the light OF the fact which
the historic truth of the passage of the act
tells ,rumpct-tongued, as Senator Douglas as
serted in that debate in the Senate the other
dav, as reported in the National lntelligcn-
Ger Of the oath instant, that "the bill
was amended 10 Mdf .ad, by striking out the
appcal to Congress and inserting the right Of
appeal to the Supreme Court, without refer
cnce to the value Of the property in controver-
sy." ANY construction Of the language OF the
act-any dislocation or collocation ofits sections
or clauses-to show that it was not intended
to clothe the Territorial Legislature with plena-
~ powers to legislate on all and every subject
as it might list rs against that luminous fact,
is ONLY as the strength of butter in the sun that
mclts it. Such was and is the bill as voted for
by the South in Congress and as now in force.
What was its mischief, and whp' II dis
armed the slave owner in the territory of his
political aud inexpensive appeal to Congress.
il threw him off from the aid and comfort Of
the s~uffragcs of the South and Of the Northern
Democracy in electing representatives to Con
gross and to the Presidential office, and crowded
him into the mcshes Of Federal litigation. This
were enough, if il did no more, to deter South
ern men from moving to Kansas with their
slaves. ind ehy was it done:
Whv was it done-not from what motive,
but in consideration of what rcason-from what
supposed necessity for doing it, was it done, is
the inquiry. What Constitutional stronghold
of the slave owners right in the territory, was
overlooked or could not have been estimated at
its intrinsic value, the oversight or want Of just
appreciation Of which by the South in Con-
rress, has reduced the South to such low estate
in their territorial possessions: 1t was this,
and onlv this, the individuality Of tic property
right. No matter what the property is ina
hat or q negro. Property is not 4 States right.
II is the right of the individual citizen. 1t was
an oversight Of the true value and the far
reaching strength Of this individual right, tina,
subjected the right Of property Of the slave
owner in the territories in his slave there, to
the rule of tine majority there. 1t is Of no
moment as I have shown lin my former letter
whether the right is SO subordinatcd to the
! territorial legislature or to the territorial Con.
vention engaged in forming 4 State Consti.
tuition. If slave property may be expelled
and taken away from its posSessors for
compensation or without it, by the Con
y~ention, or by the acts OF ordinary legis.
IT, =: .aoc,rrn,ty ~ tho CopSfifntiuD
established by that Convention, the legislative
and executive overs OF the General Govern.
ment having no right to intervene" the slave
owner will be as etfectually deferred from car
ryins his slaves to the territory in the terrific
rial condition, as if the power to expel belong
| ed equally TO the territorial legislature. "The
time between is short In this age and coun'
try, in which broad acres are peopled as if by
magic, it is the magic Of our Liberty. The
territorial capacity is very soon merged into
State sovereignty. If the owner OF slaves
wanted to part with them for Il price, he need
not CARR them to 4 territory, for the govern.
/ ment-any governmental fix the price,
| Moreover, no authority, Territorial, State or
| other, has any right, within the range Of the
| Federal Constitution, to take away from any
person his property, except for payment Of
his debts or for public use. If his slave, then
his shirt, ifhis shirt; then his herd; ifhis herd.
then he may be restricted by the same author.
ity to one meal q day, and if so, to that meal OF
crackers and cold water. Either Is despotism.
| will not here enlarge the views, or repeat
those heretofore presented, in support Of tic IN
d~iriduality Of The great right @property un.
der our institutions. and which, indeed, is in.
separablc from any free system Of civil polity.
! Civil liberty cannot-nonc other than the lib.
erty Of the savage, or the viler liberty Of the
freebooter can-exist without that great right
in amplcst range all beyond the precincts OF
debt and crime and the belligerant power of the
State TO have specific appropriations of the in
dividual's property for actual p"bhic usc.
1t is proposed only TO offer one exemplifica'
ton of the tremendous strength Of the individu.
atty Of the property-right, which WAS virtually
surrendered by the South in the provisions Of
| the Act Of Congress organizing the territories
| of Kansas and Nebraska, in all which or to all
which provisions the South in Congress. either
insisted or assented. That strength is seen, or
rather its vitality and power exists unseen in
| the fugitive slave law. 1t was the principle oil
property, wherever existing, that was secured by
the organic stipulation Of the Federal Con,
SttutOT. IL MAS HoW q INV VI t""'
principle-from a sense Of social Justice
the principle in and of itself being a barren
! right to the individual-that the trainers Of the
| Constitution invoked on the government it es-
tablished, the necessarily inferential duty Of
imparting, by act of ordinary legislation, the
energies Of activity to that principle. The
STARE, escaped from the service Of his master,
according to the undisputcd cotemporaneous
exposition of the provision, is to be delivered
up. To uhom' Not to the State from which
the slave had escaped, but ITO the party"-thc
person-to whom his service is due. 1t is not
State sovereignty that extends its arm, and re.
captures and brings back the fugitive from
labor. 1t is not the State that the fugitivc's
labor is due to. 1t is the individual right OF
the owner, which, it is true, might be a bar
rem right without the aid of the strength
| of his State; but vet, without that aid, could