The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1859-06-08

Il addition 70. the refusal Of the seifstylel
democratic party 70 receive Kansas into the
Union, because slavery was recognized IN per
constitution, the Kansas bill itself containsthe
legal restraint which debars a southern citizen
from Tie power Of action to bring suit for the
RECOVERY of d Slave in the territory.
1t has been contended that, if southerner
60 to a territory with Lis slave, and the terri
tonal legislature refuse 70 enact laws for the
protection and enjoyment Of that property; OF
if the Inhabitants around linn takes his negro
BY force, as the northern people in some States
are often doing, and liberate him and call
him a free man, then the southerner has the
right to appeal to congress for the enactment
Of such laws as will insure the proper enjoy
ment Of bis property.
This proposition has been assumed, and, to
all appearance, successfully, until recently
A territory is the common property Of all the
States. Congress is the representative Of all
the States. and The territory is its creature II
follows, then, as a just consequence, that q
citizen Of New Y ork and citizen Of Georgia
having gone to the territory with their proper
ty, have an equal right, under the constitution
Of the United States, to demand of congress
protection for that property. This is natural
inference, for, when in territory we live on
soil that is common to the people Of the United
States, and not in a sovereign State There
fore, we must look to congress for protection.
A slave being property, and the people Of q
territory saying that | shall not use him in the
territory, then, have the right to demand OF
congress to insure to me the enjoyment Of the
right to that slave, horse being property,
and the people Of territory saying that we shall
nosuse him in the territory. then We have the
right to demand Of congress to insure us the
right to use that horse These are maxims
That seem to be right and just, and which was
urged strongly BY The democracy in the dis
cussion of ''squatter sovereignty Or terrific
rial sovereignty, in connection with the fact
that when the people of territory shall come
to form their State constitution, then they have
Tie right to say whether they WILL or will not,
alloy (he use Of slaves as a properly in the
State
The democracy have been saving the dear
country from utter ruin for several years past,
on this theory! Sill, the country is becomin y
more and more enthralIed in meshes Of diff
Guilty. This Kansas dispute, this old mysteri-
Gus question Of '.sQuatter sovereignty" is still
up, The last congress opened and closed its
session with discussion ofthe meaning Of the
Kansas bill And, Mr.. Douglas the champion
of northern democracy, has succeeded in con
vincing our southern senators that the Kansas
bill did contemplate sovereign power in a
territory; and, that, under the language Of tie
bill, the people Of territory have the right to
abolish slavery. After all, that far seeing
statemanship, which has been claimed to ex
ist amongst the southern democratic senators,
has been found lacking, and the humiIiating
confession has fallen from their own lips in the
senate hail. that they were cheated, deceived
and swindled vixen the Kansas bill was passed
The American party told them then that
there was a s'cat in the meal" The faithful
warnings Of that veteran band, IN advocating
that tie Kansas bill was swindIe, has at last
been verified BY democratic senator in the
senate hall Of the Union.
A democratic congress passed the Kansas
bill, democratic senator has confessed that
was swindle; therefore, the democratic party
has swindIed the southern people, and violated
a great and dear principle Of natural law.
The remedy which a Kansas bill gives {
southerner, when the Inhabitants Of territory
deprive him Of the use and ownership Of hi!
slave, is the right Of action before territorial
court and an appeal to the supreme court Q
the United States But the territorial Iegisla
ture refuses TO pass any law recognizing slave
~, (while they may not pass any law to abol
ish it) and when a southerner applies to ter
rtorial court for recovery Of his property, he j.
coolly told that there is no statute in force il
the territory recognizing property in slaves
Therefore he can't get hearing before a ter
rtorial court and consequently, he not being
able to make out case properly certified, a
is necessary lie can't getto the supreme court
therefore he loses his property
We have the natural right to appeal to con
gress, but it was yielded the moment the Kan
sas bill became law. These and variou;