The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1859-03-01
SENATOR DOUGLAS ON SLAVERY IN THE TERRI

TORIES.
In our last issue we published communication,
the signature Of Southern Democrat, in relation
10 the position Of Mr.. Douglas on this subject We
desire TO do full Justice to the Illinois senator this
and all other questions. Our correspondent gives
much credit TO Mr. Douglas for his excrtions in pro
ducing the repeal Of the Missouri restriction aud
establishing the doctrue Of non-interventon with
reference TO the Territories. Southern Democrat
further states truly, that the legal question as to
whether slavery was carried into the Territories by
tic constitution Of the United States and existed
there until the formation of State constitutions by
tho inhabitants of the Territories, was, by the Kan
sas.N ebraska act referred to the Judiciary. We do
not wish to abac The 1.-THE Of hair from, tho just
praise due to Mr. Douglas for his services in the
establishment Of thoso sautary doctrines. What we
do object TO him is that he docs not stand up to his
own work, but now practically abandona the only
living principle established by his Kansas act His
position involves singular contradiction for in the
debate Of Wednesday last he admits, in substance
that the Kansas act RENTS TO the Judiciary the de-
termination of tue question whether slaves can be held
in the Territories as property during the time OF
territorial pupilagc, and mp to the period OF the for
nation Of State constitution. Now, the Supreme
Court Of the United States in the bred Scott case,
as already shown held that the constitution of the
United States permitted the citizens of all the States
to take their propertyslaves as well as all other
to the common Territories aud that it was not III the
power of Congress on territorial Legislature to de-
stroy or exclude slavery, or any other species OF
property recognised in any Of the States as proper
ty. Upon the nature of this restriction, the court
rcmar1s "And if Congress itself cannot do this--f
il is beyond the powers conferred ON the federal
governments will be admitted, we presume, that
it could mol authorize territorial government to ex-
ercse them. II could confer no power ON any local
government established by its authority, to violate
the provisions of the constitution" The reasoning
Of the case goes Upon the ground lst that the con-
stitutiop gives the right to take slaves as well as
other property TO the Territories 2. That it is not
Ia the power Of Congress or aterroral Legislature to
exclude from destroy slave property or any other
species Of property, in the Territories, which by
The laws of any of the States is held subject to
dominion as property The Court further remark,
And IL the constitution recognises the right OF prop
erty Of the the master in slave and makes no distnc-
ton between that description of property and other
property owned by citizen tribunal, acting under
the authority Of The United States, whether it be
Legislature executive Judicial, has right to draw
such distinction or deny it the benefit of the pro-
visions and guarantees which have been provided Tor
the protection of private property against the en-
croachments of the government. Now, as we have
already said in earlier part of this opinion upon
,s,bf nr IN n We
distinctly and expressly affirmed in the constitution.
The right to traffic in IT, like ordinary article OF
merchandise and property, was guaranteed to The cit
liens of the United States in every State that might
desire it, for twenty years Aud government, in ex-
press terms, is pledged TO protect it in all future
! time if the slave escapes from his owner. This is
done ia plain wurds--too plain to be misunderstood
| Aud 10 word can be found in tho constitution which
gives Congress greater power over slave property,
or which entities property of that kind TO less pro
lection than property Of any other description The
only power conferred, is the power coupled with the
duty of guarding and protecting the owner in has
+ gifts Upon these considerations, il is the opinion
OF the court that the of Congress which prohib-
tied citizen from holding and owning property Of
this kind in the Territory Of the United States north
OF tho line therein mentioned is not warranted by
| the constitution and is therefore void"
1t is manifest that the decision goes to the extent
of saving that neither Congress territorial legis
hture eau exclude slavery from the Territories any
more than manufactures any other species of per-
sonal property and that Congress and tho territorial
! authorities have neither the power to exclude nor
| destroy any species of property guaranteed 10y The
i laws of the States or the constitution of the United
I States,
What then, is the practical position of Mr.. Doug
las? He sends the question TO tho Judiciary, sub
mits in fact to the jurisdiction aud then refuses to
1 be bound by the decision of the Court This is the
| tune of qualifications set to arrangement. The
original nullers had the grace to deny the authori-
| ~ Of the Supreme Court and decline the iurisdc-
ton.
we regret the attitude Of Mr.. Douglas. 1t is ono
pregnant with danger to the public peace and tram
quilliiy In his own language he maintains that it is
acompetent for the territorial legislature, by the ex-
ercse of the taxing power, and other functions with
in the limits of the constitutions, to adopt such UNI
friendly legislation as would practically drive slave
nv out of the Territory That was just what he said,
aud all he meant by his Freeportspeech in Illinois,
4 ON which so much comment had been made" His
position ia that territorial Legislature has the
..t,,o,.I anl r;ghtf,I poWer la erc,tfd, slavery