The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1859-11-17

not do It ten years ago, nor twenty years ago,
nor at any time since Ohio existed as State
of the Union. Why is this so? Does not
the Constitution prevail equally over all the
Union! Does not the very language of the
second section of the " III article OF the Con-
stitution of the United States declare that
.'the citizens OF each State shall be entitled
10 all privileges and immunities of citizens in
TIE several States .
SLAVERY is NOT PROTECTED BIZ THE CosrIrU-
TIoN. But ONLY BY LOCAL LAW.
Yet We find that citizens OF Massachusetts
possess and have possessed over ftiy eears
certain privileges in the matter of changing
their domicils, which the citizens of Virginia
do not possess. One can 60 to Ohio and
carry his property and keep it. The other
cannot. And yet demagogues would have
Southern men believe that no discrimua-
ton against their Property ought 10 exist; or
ever did ertst, and that 10 enforce such dis
elimination in the settlement of new States
would be To establtsh a distinction between
certain classes OF property which the South
cannot. in honor, submi, 10 !
1t slavery cannot go into the Free States
and maintain itself, why expect to go into
Free Territories and maintain itself-there
being in neither case local laws 10 protect it
Is not the Constitution OF the United States
as vigorous, as comprehensive. and as Just
IN Ohio as II is in Kansas Does it not re.
gard the propetty-tfe rested rights-of all
citizens. in all places of the Republic. as
equally sacred II slavery is nationalist
it exists in the Constitution itself how
can the Constitution permit an owner of such
property to be despoiled Off, in a Free State,
any more than in a Free Territory? Can a
State be permitted to nullifv the rights of
man IN property that is recognized in the
United States-and the Federal Governme n.
have no power TO interfere? OF cour e not;
for the Constitution says that 1.-the United
States shall guarantee to every State Re-
publican form of Government" But such
State Government, despoling a man of
his right. would not be Republic, but des-
potlc. It is clear. that if slavery be the rule
ii 1t be national, if it erists an tie Consti-
tuition, and is carried wherever the Constitu-
ton prevails-that it is as sacred in Ohio as
in Kansas, and as firmly to be upheld in Ell
ther, as on the banks of the Sabine Wher-
ever the flag of the Union floats. there every
citizen IS entitled to protection in all lis
rights, that are National and Constitutional
Such would be the case with regard to slay
property, if slavery is national.
THE DISCRIMINATIoN NEVER THOUGHT A HARD
SHIP BY THE SOUTH.
But this is not So 1t is not claimed even
by the South, and never has been, that slave !
owner has right to remove with his negroes |
to a Free State, and call on the United States
Government 10 protect him in his property.
Yet his right to go TO Free State is as per,
feet. under the United States Constitution as
/ it is to 60 to Free Territory. Was Kansas
acquired by ''the common blood and treasure
OF the Union ?" So was Iowa-and what
right has Iowa. any more than Kansas. to
n 4
the citizens of any portion of the Union of
their National and Constitutional rights .
This discrimination against slave property,
as regards emf grafton into Free States. we
have thus shown. has always existed, and
never by the South been thought a hardship.
And why? Because, perhaps, the citizens
OF the Slave States felt that in the privilege to
rote on their slares. that species of property
had obtained peculiar and transcendent ad-
vantage over all other poperty in the Union,
that more than compensated for its one re-
striction, to wit: that it should not enter into
and establish itself in Free States.
If the South is tired of this discrimin alton
against slave property. which has existed
since the Government was established, and
desires it abandoned. then the South should
propose to abandon, also, the privileges that
such property enjoys. Surely it is only fair
that property should in point OF fact, become
equal before 1t claims 10 go as equal into the
common territory OF the Union If the South
decline the one. how it fairly claim the
other.
THE SOUTH IN HONOR BOUND TO THE ORIG
NAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BIZ LAW.
Mr.. Bates does not. therefore, regard the
non admission of slavery into the territories
of the Union as establishing distinction be-
tween property, but simply maintaining
distinction already established. willingly as
sened TO by the South at the formation Of the
/ Government, and ever since. 1t is only at
/ the instance of mischievous demagogues that
/ the South is now tempted to change its po-
sition, aud abandon the literal and ira !ition-
al compromises Of the Constitution. AS a
true and upright citizen. who loves his coun-
try's well kept faith as he does his own pri
vate honor. Mr.. Bates opposes the attempt of
Southern Fanatics to make slavery overleap
its original rights, limitations aud relations
to other property of the Union.
Inasmuch as the entire Democratic party
of the Free States are as decidedly opposed
as even the Republican party. TO the extern
sion of slavery over territory previously free,
il is quite evident that Congress will never in
tervene TO protect slave property in the Ter
ritories, such being the fact, those Southern
men who object to Mr.. Bates slavery re-
strictionist might well ask themselves wheth-
er more of honor or advantage is gained by
asking what cannot be had. and submitting
to the fatal necessity of denial and defeat =
or asking only that the present limits, privi-
leges and guarantees Of slavery be maintain
ed. and obtaining it with the cheerful and
hearty concurreLc ce OF nine -tenths of all the
parties in the Union.
The Kansas Nebraska Bill rendering the
fatrodxction Of Skarery info Territories
impossible
If the national Democracy offer more to
the South, we know they offer what they
cannot give. and do not mean to try TO give.