, 1859-11-25

west Territory II the ordinance OF 1851 or
some other regulation had not been made
to prohibit it, The Missouri restriction Of
1890 was imposed solely because it was
understood (probably by every member Of
that Congress) that, in the absence Of a
restriction, slave property would be as law
ful in the eye OF the Constitution above
$50 80 as below; and oil agreed that the
mere absence Of restriction did, in fact,
make it lawful below the compromise line.
g. 1t is right 10 learn wisdom from our
enemies The Black Republicans do not
point to any express provision Of the Con-
stitution, nor to any established rule Of law,
which sustains their views. The ablest
men among them are driven by stress Of
necessity to hunt for arguments in a code
unrevealed, unwritten, aud underlined, which
they put above the Constitution or the
Bible, and call it higher law" The ul-
ira abolitionists of New England do not
deny that the Constitution is rightly inter
preted by the Democrats, as not interfering
against slavery in the Territories; but they
disdain to obey what they pronounce to be
an agreement with death and a covenant
with hell"
Z. What did Mr. Douglas mean when
be proposed and voted for the Kansas Ne
braska bill, repeating the Missouri restric-
tion 7 Did he intend to tell southern men
that, Notwithstanding the repeal of the pro-
hibition, they were excluded from those
Territories as much as ever 4? Or did be
regard the right Of master to bis slave
perfectly good whenever he got rid Of the
prohibition Did he, or anybody else at
that time, dream that it was necessary to
make a positive law in favor of the slave
holder before he could go there with safetyl
To ask these questions is to answer them
The Kansas-Nebraska bill was not meant
as q deusion or a snare 1t is we'll under
stood that the repeal alone Of the restric-
tion against slavery would throw the coun-
try open to everything which the Constitu-
tion recognized as property.
We have thus given what we believe to
be the opinions held by the great body Of
the Democratic party-namely, that the
Federal Constitution does not establish
slavery anywhere in the Union; that it per-
mits q black man TO be either held 10 ser
Vitude or made free, as the local law shall
decide; and that 10 a Territory where no
local law on the subject has been enacted,
it keeps both the slave and the free negro
in the StatHS already impressed upon them,
uhtil it shall be changed by competent To-
cal authority. We have seen that this is
sustained BY the reason Of the thing, by
great principle Of public law, by the words
Of the Constitution, by a solemn decision Of
the Supreme Court, BY the whole course Of
our legislation, by the concession of our
political opponents, and, finally. by the
most important act in the public life Of Mr..
Douglas himself
Mr. Douglas imputes another absnrdty
to his opponents when be charges them
with insisting " that it is the duty Of the
judiciary to protect and maintain slavery in
the Territories t0itAOEi any lao upon the
Su6jeet" The judge who acts without law
acts against law; and surely no sentiment
so atrociOus as this was ever entertained
by any portion Of the Democratic party.
The right Of master TO the services Of bis
slave in q TerriOrty Is not against law, nor
without law, but in full accordance with
law. If the law be against it, we are all
against It. Has not the emigrant to Ne
braska legal right to the ox-team which
be bought in Ohio to haul him over the
plains Is not bis title as good to It 10 the
Territory as It was in the State where he
get it And what should be said Of a
Judge who tells him that be is not protect
ed, or that he is maintained, in the possess
ion Of bis property without any law upon
the subject p
II. We had right TO expect from Mr..
Douglas at least q clear and Ineligible
definition Of his own doctrine. We are dis
appointed. It is hardly possible 10 con-
ceiYe anything more difficult TO compre-
bend. We will transcribe it again, and do
what can be done to analyze it:
Those who believe that the Constitu-
tion Of the United States neither establish
es nor prohibits slavery in the States or
Territories beyond the power Of the people
legally to control it, but leaves the people
thereof perfectly free to form and regulate
their domestic institutions in their own
way, subject only TO the Constitution of the
United States"
The COHStitUtioa Reitler ESTABLISHES nor
prohibits SlareTy Ia The States or Territories.
II it be meant by this that the Constitution
does not, Propria rigors, either emancipate
any mans slave or create the condition Of
slavery and impose it on free negroes, bat
leaves the question Of every black mans
status, in the Territories as well as in the
States, to be determined by the local law,
then we admit it, for it is the very same
proposition which we have been trying to
prove. But il, on the contrary, it is TO be
understood as an assertion that the Consti.
tuition does not permit master to keep bis
slave, or a free negro to have his liberty, in
all parts Of the Union where the local law
does not interfere to prevent il, then the
error is not only a grave one, but it is also
absurd and elfcontradictory
The Constitution neither esta6kses MOI
prohibits slavery in the States or TsrritOriel
beyond The pOtOsr of the people legally TO con-
troll IT, This is sailing from Point No. Point