The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1859-10-19


/ they ly law forfeit the property of cilizrn in
a Terri Ory who was convicted Of treason, .or
/ longer period than the lie Of the person con.
Nicted nor take private property for public use
without just compensation.
"Ihe powers over persons and property, Of
, which we speak, are not only granted to Con.
grCss but are in expr, So terms denied, and
they are fol bidden TO exercise them. And this
prohibition is not confined TO the States, hut The
words are general,aE extend to the whole ter
rIiOry over which the Constitution gives it pow
er TO legslate, including those portions Of
it remaining under Territorial Governments,
as wsll as that covered by Stat :.
"lt is total absence Of power, every where
, within the dominion of the United States. and
places the citizens Ota Territory, so far as these
rights are concerned on the same footing with
citizens Of the States, and guards them as firm
Iy and plainly against any inroads hich the
, general Government might attempt, under the
( plea OF implied or incidental powers And il
Congress itself cannot DO this-ir it is beyond
The powers conferred on the Federal Govern
ment-it will he admitted, we presume, that
it could not authorize a Territorial government
to exercise them. 1t could confer no power on
any local government, established by its author
y to violate the Provisions Of the ConStitu-
: tion."
Nothing can be more certain than that the
Court were here speaking only of forJddeR po,c
eS, which were denird alike to Congress- to the
State Legislatures, and to the Territorial Legis-
latureS, and that the prohibition extends "every
where within the dominion of the United
States" applicable equally to States and Terri
tories, as well as to the United States
If this sweeping prohbtion-this Just but
al
ernment--Fedcral, State and Territoral--shall
ever be helu to include the slavery question,
thus negativeing the right Of the people Of the
States and Territories, as well as the Federal
! Government to control it by law (and it will
f be observed that IN the opinion of the court
"the citizens of Territory, so far as these
rights are concerned, are on the same footing
with the citizens Of the States") then, indeed
will the doctrine become firmly established
that the principles of law applicable to African
slavery are uniform throughout the dominion of the
United States, and that there "i an rrepreSsiblt
; conflict between opposing and enduring forces,
which means that the United States must and
will, sooner or later, become either entirely
slaveholding nation or entirely free labor na,
ton"
, Notwithstanding the disastrous consequences
f which would inevitably result from the author
itahve recognition and practical operation of
such doctrine, there are those who maintain
that the court referred to and intended the sla
very question within that class of forbidden
powers which although the same in the Terri
| tories as in the States) could not be exercised
by the people of the Territories.
If this proposition were true which fortu-
f nately for the peace and welfare Of the whole
country it is not, the conclusion would incvita.
bic result, which they logically deduce from the
premises--that the Constitution bv the recog-
milton of slavery establishes it in the Terrific
ries beyond the power OF the people to control
Thy law, and guarantees to every citizen the
, right to go there and be protected in the enjoy
= ment Of his slave property; and when all other
' remedies fail for the protection Of such rights
Of property, it becomes the imperative duty Of
n C0ngrets (to the performance of which every
I member is bound by his conscience and his oath
) and from which no consideration Of political
/ palcy OF expediency can release him) 10 provide
, by law such adequate and complete protection
as is essential to the full enjoyment of an i'm
5 portant right secured by tho Constitution. If
: the proposition be true that the Constitution
establishes slavery in the Territories beyond
r the power Of the people legally to control it,
another result, no less startling. and from which
= there is no escape; must inevitably follow. The
Constitution is Uniform everywhere within the
| dominions Of the United States''--is the same
in Pennsylvania as in kansas--and lift be true,
as stated by the President in special message
to Congress, that slavery exists in Kansas by
virtue Of the Constitution oftbe United States, i"
9 and that "kansaS is therefore at this moment
$ as much slave State as Georgia or South Car
E ona," why does it not exist in Pennsylvania
|, by virtue of the same Constitution?
If it be said that Pennsylvania is Sovereign
e State, and therefore has right to regulate the
r slavery question within her own limits to suit
herself, it must be borne in mind that the sOver-
| eighty OF Pennsylvania, like that of every 9TH
er State, is limited by the Constitution, which
provides that:
"rhs Constitution and all laws OF the Uni
ted States which shall be made in pursuance
thereof, and all treaties made, or that shall be
} made, under the authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme la1C of tie land, and the
judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
anything in the Constitution or halos If am State
to the contrary notDitb aandiRg."
, Hence the State Of Pennsylvania, with her
Constitution and laws, and domestic institutions
and internal policy, is subordinate to the Con
Stitution ofthe United States, in the same man
ner, and to the same extent, as the Territory Of
Kansas. The Kansas Nebras ka : ct says that
the Territory of Kansas shall exercise egisla-
tive power over 'all righfnl subjects OF legiSa-
ton consistent with the Constitution" and that
the people of said Territory shall be left 'per-
+ tectly free to form and regulate their domestic
institutions III their own way, subject only to
the Constitution OF the United States" The
provisions Of this act are believed to be
t IN entire la,mory with the Con titution, and
r under them the people of Kansas possess
every right, privilege, and immunity in respect
5 to their internal polity and domestic relations
which the people Of Pennsylvania can exercise
| under their Constitution and laws, Each is in
vested with tull, complete and exclusive pow
ers in this respect, Subject only to the Consti-
, tuition Of the United States"
, Tie question recurs then, if the Constitution
does establish slavery in Kansas or any other
I erritory beyond the power of the people to
control it by law, low can the conclusion be re-
: sisted that slavery is established in like man
J ner and by the same aut hority in all the States
, Of the Union? And if it be the imperative du-
ty of Congress to provide by law 'or the pro-
lection Of slave property in the Territories up
on the ground that Slavery exists in Kansas
f (and consequently in every other Territory, )
, by virtue OF the Constitution of the United
States" why is it not also the duty Of CongIess,
for the some reason, to p1oyide similar protec-
ton to slave property in all the States Of the
Union, when the Legislatures fail TO furnish
+ such protection?
:. Without conlessing or attempting to avoid
| tho inevitable consequences OF their own doc
, trine, its advocates endeayor to forty their 20
siton by citing the Dred Scott decision to prove
that the Constitution recognizes property in
slayes--that there is no legal distinction be-
tween this and every other description ofprop-
, IertV--that slave uronclty and every other hind