The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1859-10-01

subject only to the Constitution of the
United States" The provisions of this act
are believed to be in entire harmony with
the Constitution, and under them the peo-
pie OF Kansas possess every right, privilege
and immunity, in respect 10 their internal
policy and domestic relations, which the
people of Pennsylvania can exercise under
their Constitution and laws. Each is in
vested with full, complete and exclusive
powers in this respect, subject only to the
Constitution of the United States"
The question recurs then, if the Constitu-
ton does establish slavery in Kansas or any
other Territory beyond the power of the
people to control it by law, how can the
conclusion be resisted that slavery is estab-
lished in like manner and by the same au-
thority in all the states in the Union p
And il it be the imperative duty of Con
gress TO provide by law for the protection
OF slave property in the Territories upon
the ground that slavery exists in Kansas
(and consequently in every other terrific
ry) by virtue OF the Constitution Of the
United States, why is it not also the duty
of Congress, for the same reason, to pro-
vide similar protection TO slave property in
all the states OF the Union, when the Leg
ls!atures fail to furnish such protection.
Without COutc-Sing or attempting to
avoid the inevitable consequences Of their
own doctrine, it, advocates endcavor to for
tity their position hy citing the Dred Scott
drcl-ion to prove that the Constitution re
cogulzes property IN slavcs-that there Is
no legal distinction between this and every
other description of property-that slave
property and every other kind OF property
stand oil an equa! iOotinc-tAat Congress
has no more power over the one than over
the o,Lcr-and. consequently, cannot Dis
crimiuatc between them.
Upon this point the Court say:
Now "a. We have air. aiy said in an earlier part OF
'is e'" tron different po'nt, th- Eht "i Prpuerty
ia Save IS dist ncty aud expressly affirmed ia the Con-
s'iui'on- And the Const!ru-
ton reoor izrs the right q properly Of the in
slave and Tua-r- distinction between that a.-criP
ti"u - property al other property owned hy citizen
no tribunal a,lns under the authority % the UnIird
state, v ir'h lt =. legislative executive judicial
has -l; 30 draw s-c' dst!ulun. deny II the
b-u,i o. the provisions ana guarantees which have
been provided Tor tl- protection q private property
against tie cncroachUerts Of tie G"'eru-leat- .
Aud tie Government. in express terms. j. pledged
h-E "s"sr- It's = toE- ia pas4 worl-to plain to oe
ui-4Ua,r-tort And word can he 'nlni III he Con
slt-,"n w.E,n gives Congress gysotsr power over
7a'- property or "hs entities property o. TIA; tiLd
10 .ss protection than property Of aay other d,scrp-
N'E Tie Only power caa'rFr,d i the power coupled
A-s Ticiits."
The rights of the owner which it IS thus
made Tho duty Of the Federal Government
10 guard and protect are those expressly
provided for IL the constitution, and defin-
FL IN clear aud explicit language by the
tDu.t-t.at the government. III express
terms, II i pledged to protect it slave
property in all future time, q tie sl0rc e.
-1use ,r0', t.s a,r,cr This Is the only con
tiH-eucy. according TO the plain reading OF
the Constitution. a. autHOr.tGtVely inter
TT"tcd ty the Supreme Court Ia which the
Federal Government i authorized requir-
ed or permitted tojintcrtere With slavery
ia the States or Territories and in that
case only for tie purpose Of guarding and
protecting the owner in his rights TO re-
claim Lis slave property. In all other res
poets slaves stand on the same footing with
all other property" the Constitution
makes no distinction between that descTip-
ton Of property and other property owned
by "a citizen. and 10 word eau bc found
Il the Constitution which gives Congress a
greater power oE,r~.lye property. OF which
eatl-.es property Of that hiGd 10 less pro
lection than property Oi any other dlsCrip-
ton. This J. the basis upon which all
rights pertaining II lave property. either
iu the States or the Territories stand un-
't'- NH4' t.'fi4 ~
Supreme Count in the Drcd Scott case.
Iuasmuch Is the Constitution has dele
gated 10 power to the Federal Govern
n"ut IN respect 10 any other kind Of prop
eTtH belonging II the citizcu-ncither in
Producing. establishing. prohibiting, nor ex-
Guiding II auyw here within the dominion
OF the United States, but leaves the owner
thereof perfectly free 10 remove into any
State or Territory and carry his PROPERTY
with him, and hold the same subject to
the local Law, and relying upon the local
authorities for protection, il follows, accOr-
ding to the decision OF the Court. that
slave property stands on the same footing,
Is entitled u the same rights and immuni-
ties, and in like manner i dependent upon
the loca! authorities and laws for protec-
ton.
The Court refer to that clause of the
Constitution which provides for the rendi-
ton of fugitive slaves as their authority
Tor saying that the right Of property in
slaves i distinctly and expressly affirmed
IN the Constitution BY reference to
that provision it viii be seen that, while
the word slaves is not used, still the Con
stitution not only recognizes the right of
property in slaves, as stated by the Court,
but explicitly states what class of persons
shall be deemed slaves, and under what
laws or authoity they may be held to ser
vitude, and under what circumstances fI-
gitive slaves shall lie restored 10 their ow-
ners, all in the same section, as follows:
NO person held to service labor in one State un-
der tie h'cS hereCf escaping into another shall, in
consequence of any law regulation therein, be dis
charged from such service labor but shall be deli
yered upon the claim of the whom such service
or labor may be due"
Thus it VIII be seen that a slave, within
the the meaning of the Constitution, is "a
person held to service or labor in one State
oplder tie GsgS thereof not under the Con
stitution of the United States, nor hy the
laws thereof, nor by virtue of any Federal
authority whatsoever. but under the laws
of the particular State where such service
or labor may be due.
1t was necessary TO give this exact def
milton Of slavery in the Constitution in or
der to satisfy the people of the South as
we'll as of the North. The slaveholdine
States would never consent for moment
that their domestic relations-and espe
cially their right of property in their slave:
should be dependent upon Federal au
thority, or that Congress should have any
power over the subiect-either to extend
contine, or restrain it; much less to protec
or regulate it--lest, under the pretence o
protection and regulation, the Federal Gov
ernment, under the influence of the stron!
and increasing anti-slavery sentiment which
prevailed at that period, might destroy th
| Institution, and divest those rights of prop
| erty IN slaves which were sacred under th'
laws and Constitutions of their respective
! States so long as the Federal Government
/ had no power to interfere with the subject
In like manner the non-slaveholdin
States, while they were entirely willing t.
provide for the surrender of all tugitiv
/ slaves--as is conclusively shown by tn
unanimous vote of all the States in tn
consideration-and to leave each state pei
fectly free to hold slaves under its ow
laws, and by virtue of its own exclusiv