The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1859-09-28

CSLQOGtSftSS
Territories, and insist that it is the duty of the
judiciary to maintain it there arithout any laro
ON the subject We do not charge him with
any intention to be unfair: but we assert, that
he has in fact done wrong to, probably, nine
teen-twentieths of the party, by attempting to
put them on grounds which they mover chose
for themselves.
The Constitution certainly does not establish
| slavery in the Territories, nor anywhere else
Nobody in this country ever thought or said
so. But the Constitution regards as sacred
and inyiolable all the rights which a citizen
may legally acquire in State. If a man ac-
| quircs property of any kind in State, and goes
with it into a Territory, he is not for that rea-
son to be stripped of it. Our simple and plain
proposition is, that the legal owner of slave
or other chattel may go with it into a Federal
Territory without forfeiting his title.
Who denies the truth of this, and upon
what ground can it be controverted? The rea-
sons which support it are very obvious. As a
jurist and statesman, Mr.. Douglas ought to
be familiar with them, and there was time
when he was supposed to understand them
very well. We will briefly give him few of
them.
l. 1t is an automatic principle of public law,
that a right of property, private relation,
condition or status, lawfully existing in one
State or country, is not changed by the mere
removal of the parties to another country, un-
less the law of that other country be in direct
conflict with it. For instance :: A marriage
legally solemnized in France is binding in
America; children born in Germany are legit-
innate here if thev are legitimate there; and a
merchant who buys goods in New York accor-
ding to the laws of that State may carry them
to Illinois and hold them there under his con-
tract. 1t is precisely so with the status of
negro carried from one part of the United
States to another the question of his free
dom or servitude depends on the place where
he came from, and depends on that alone, if
there be conflicting law at the place to
which he goes or is taken. The Federal Con-
stitution therefore recognizes slavery rs le-
gal coalition wherever the local governments
have chosen to let it stand unabolished, and
regards it as illegal wherever the laws of the
place have forbidden it. A slave being prop
erty in Virginia, remains property and his
master has all the rights of Virginia master
wherever he may go, SO that he go not where
the local law comes in conflict with his right.
1t will not be pretended that the Constitution
itself furnishes to the Territories conflicting
law. 1t contains no provision that can be to-
tured into any semblance of a prohibition.
z. The dispute on the question whether sla-
very or freedom is local or general, is mere
war Of words. The black race in this country
al law. That portion of it which is free is fees by
virtue of some local regulation, and the slave
owes service for similar reason. The COnsti-
tuition and laws of the United States simply
declare that everything done in the premises
by tie State governments is right, and they
shall be protected in carrying it out. But free
negroes and slaves may both find themselves
outside of any State jurisdiction, and in Ter
| ritory where no regulation has yet been made
h. .,,I. IL.
equally impartial. It neither frees the slave
nor cnslayes the freeman. 1t requires both to
remain in stdtu quo until the status already
impressed apon them by the law of their pre-
vious domicil shall be changed by some COM
petont local authority. What is competent To-
cal authority in Territory will be elsewhere
considered
3. The Federal Constitution carefully guards
the rights of private property against the Fed
eral Government itself, by declaring that it
shall not be taken for public use without COM
pensation, nor without due process of law
Slaves are private property, and every man
who has taken IN oath of fidelity to the Con-
stitution is religiously, morally, and politically
bound t®ard them SUCH Does anybody
suppose that Constitution which acknowl-
edges the sacredness of private property so full
ly would wantonly destroy that right, not by
any words that are found in it, but by mere
implication from its general principles 1t
might as we'll be asserted that the general prin-
ciples of the Constitution gave Lane and Mont
gomery a license to steal horses in the valley
of the Usage.
f. The Supreme Court of the United States
has decided the question. After solemn argu-
ment and careful consideration, that august tri-
bunal has announced its opinion to be that
STAKEHOLDER, by going into Federal Territory,
does not lose the title he had to his negro in
the State from which he cane. In former
times, a question of constitutional law once de-
cided by the Supreme Court was regarded as
settled by all, except that little band of ribald
infdels, who meet periodically at Boston to
blaspheme the religion, and plot rebellion
against the laws of the country. The leaders
of the so-called republican party have lately
been treading close on the heels of their abo-
lition brethren but it is dcvoutly to be hoped
that Mr.: Douglas has no intention to follow
| their example. In case he is elected Presi-
dent, he must see the laws faithfully executed.
Does he think he can keep that oath by fight
ing the judiciary? s
5. The Legislative history of the country shows
that all the great statesman of times former en-
tertained the same opinion, and held it so firm
| ly that they did not even think of any other.
1t was universally taken for granted that a
slave remained slave, and freeman free
man, in the new Territories, until a change was
made in their condition by some positive en-
actment. Nobody believed that slave might
not have been taken to and kept in the North
west Territory if the ordinance of 1857 or some
other regulation had not been made to prohi-
bit it The Missouri restriction of 1920 was
imposed solely because it was understood (prob-
ably by every member of that Congress) that
in the absence Of restriction, slave property
would be lawful in the eye of tho Constitu
ton above 36o 30', as below; and all agreed
that the mere absence of restriction did, in
fact, make it lawful below the compromise
line.
6. 1t is right to learn wisdom from our enc
mics. The Republicans do not point to any
express provision of the Constitution, nor tl
any established rule of law, which sustain.
their views. The ablest men among them arr
dr;.,o,, h. etxosS of ecessitu to hunt fo, a,.cr,,