Daily national Democrat., 1859-12-07
A Fnlso Position overthrown.


The able paper Of Hon. Reverdy johnson,
on the issues between Judge Douglas and
Judge Black, completely demolishes the posi-
tion that Congress can legislate for the pro-
lection of slavery in the Territories Already
the Supreme Court has decided in the Dred
Scott Case that Congress can neither pro-
hibit nor establish slavery in the Territories,
no more than it can do so in the States Why
is this2 Because slavery is a municipal and
local regulation, dependent for its existence
upon positive law, and these positive laws
are beyond the control of Congress. This
being settled, the question arises, can Con-
gress legislate for the protection Of slave pro-
perty in the Territories Ifit exists there,
as buchanan would have it, 10y virtue OF the
Constitution of the United States. Congress
undoubtedly possesses that power. But 1t
does not exist there by virtue of the Consti-
tutiou. 1t does not exist anywhere by virtue
of the Constitution. lfit did, it would be as
lawful to hold slaves in Maine as in Georgia,
for the Constitution is paramount The Con-
stitution does no more than recognize slave
property where it is already established by
positive law. A man may take his slave
property wherever he pleases within the
limits of the United States, and enjoy it SO
long as it does not come in conflict with some
local law, and it is no further property in
that case than such local law will allow.
Then, if Congress has no power in the
premises whatever, it follows that the right
to regulate this question belongs to the peo-
pie of the Territories under that clause of tn,
Constitution which declares that all powers
not lodged in the General Government are
reserved to the States respectively or to the
people,
And why should they not regulate it ?
The people of the Territories regulate all
other property, and slave property is placed
upon precisely the same footing as any other
by the Dred Scott Decision. If Congress has
no power to legislate upon it, the consequence
is that it is left without any regulation at all,
unless the Territorial Legislature controls it,
and the Territorial Legislature has an un-
doubted right to control it, if it be upon the
same footing as other property.
This power of regulating or controlling
slave property is denied by such reasoners as
Buchanan and Black to the people of the
Territories, until such time as they come to
form a State Government They may form
such State Government at almost any time
that they see fit, with a population of orc
hundred and twenty thousand or three hun
dred thousand or million. There is no
specified amount of population necessary to
give them this control. Congress may admit
them into the Union with the one hundred
and twenty thousand or the three hun
dred thousand or the million or any other
number that they will. Very well, suppose
Congress admits the people of one Territory
as State with one hundred and twenty
thousand and refuses the one with three hun
dred thousand Congress has an undoubted
power to do this, under the Constitution. 1t
follows, then, that sovereignty over this
question of slavery exists in one hundred and
twenty thousand people when it does not ex-
ist in three hundred thousand, over double
the number 1t establishes a mere arbitrary
rule which ignores all principle in the mat
ter, as may be readily shown. For, suppose
the three hundred thousand rejected were
opposed to slavery. According to the doc
trine OF Buchanan and Black, that the people
cannot control the subject until they become
a State, and that slavery exists in the Terri
tory by virtue of the Constitution until they
do, why then it follows that the three hun
dred thousand rejected may be compelled to
stay out of the Union forever and nerer be
able to eradicate the institution from their
midst; while the one hundred and twenty
thousand admitted have long ago been un-
disputed sovereigns in the business. This
kind of a result is an absurdity in political as
well as any other kind of reasoning.