Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-06-10
Tho Rights Of ~s1avs-owners In States Newly Ad
rn;tted.
PETERSBURG, June 4th, 1859.

10 The Ed1t0rs o. tt I"q""'
Gentlemen II wish to state very Sucflnctly
the difference between Senator Douglas and
Governor Wise, and the difference between
Governor Wise and PubliuS, in respect to the
protection of slave property by proper legisla-
ton in our territorial possessions where they
arc organized, and throughout to the time OF
their transition into co-cqual states in this
confedcracy. We all three agree that Tie pre-
rixions If the Ran~t. dct organizing that ter
ritory by Federal legislation, transfer from
Congress to the Territorial Legislature. the
power to l~egislate, or to withhold legislation
for the protection Ncre of slave property
Senator Douglas maintains. that 1t is not only
true that such are the provisions Of the or
ganic act for Kansas. and Suci is their intend
cd effect, but he maintains that it is right that
it should be so. This is denied By Governor
Wise and this writer. lie and |, on the coz
trarv. deny that it is right under the Federal
Constitution, that it should be So. We
maintain that it is the dnty Of, AZ well
rs competcnt for, the General Government to
%lccislatc for the protection of slave property
during and to the end of the territorial condi-
ton. We maintain that the unbr0ken tenor
of the provisions of the Federal Constitution,
no less than the specific provision thereof, that
private property negroes being recognized as
such thereby shall only he taken for actual
public use, secures, as the tenor of that instru-
,ncnt and that provision were intended to Sc
cure. friendly legislation for the territorial
owner of Slaves Of color. Gov. Wise las | un-
dcrstand HIM here parts company and concert
of views with me. He admits that the terrific.
rial people, in the act Of forming their Con>ti.
tuition in order 10 become 4 State i'll the Union.
| NAV provide by the Constitution which is To be
asscntcd TO and accepted By Congress as Re
pubiican in other respects. for the expulsion
Of the slave property already there. nj the in
s;anc. of transition from the territorial condi.
ton 10 this other condition Of State sovereignty.
This writer, agreeing with Governor Wise up
to this point, parts company with him, and
contends that if he claims M more, he gets no.
thing of much value to the South. Beyond
! nat. | maintain that the strength Of the fede.
raj compact, which il throws around the owner
of slaves in the territorial condition, i, extend
cd. in virtue of the same conditions Of that
coinpact. to the owner If the slaves there, 81
| the time and after the tcrritory's transition
into a State; and llcncciorth throws around
him all the rights Of property which the Fede.
raj Constitution defends.
/ so llIllcI>l.till W. $50. NINi IL
NAV be that | do not understand him Alright,
| in so interpreting his meaning as intended by
| him TO he expressed in his recent letter Ia the
Hon. Win. 7. Sanford, Of Alabama. Governor
Wise, in the 7th column. assigns TO the clause
tor public "se, all the significance and restric.
ton that | claim for it-that is, that it comprc-
hcnds no mere philanthropic policy or purpose,
but that it i,nparts an inhibition of any govern
mental deprivation Of any person OF his pro
pertv. except il be taken for debt or for public
um. Yet toy. Wise comedies or contends that
when the territorial people come 10 form their
Constitution for admission a 4 State, lin the
2Ist column Of the letter "TIrY HAVE Full
POWERS oy SELr-GoyErNMESr Within HE limit
or reuu5!icna tcr6a." Now, full powers
to construe u government, impartS much more
than the added clause within the limits ofrc
publican forms" If Gov. Wise intends by
! this latter clause 10 restrict the full powers o
sclE.goycrnmcnt," on the part Of the territorial
people still subject 10 the control of the general
| Government, 81 that they shall not provide in
! their proposed Constitution, that any citizen o.
the new state may he deprived, without his
consent. Of his property, except for paying his
debts or for public use, then he claims for tho
STAKEHOLDER in the incoming State the SAME
protection and il the strength Of the same pro
visions of the federal Constitution, which he
claims for the Slavc-holdlng dwellcr in the ter
ritorial condition. If the full powers" allowed
Mt the instance OF transition from a territory
into Il State, be not intended by him to be re-
gardcd as being so restricted, in his view Of TIT
subject. then ! am at 4 loss to perceive either
the value of his doctrines 10 the South. o,
how it is that it can be maintaincd that tho
slaye-hol1ing inhabitant Of I ~tcrr;to:y is cnti
tied in virtue oi the provisions OF the Fedora
Constitution TO the protection we claim for him
during the Territorial condition.
II is only in thorough conviction of the cor
~rcctness of my view, h"t tic ri2h 20 prot'
ton crteads iato tie ncc state. that the hum
bleness of my obscurity is thrown off even To
the extent of seeking to submit that view 10 the
public, over a name which can carry no ''au
thority with it," as | have been attempting for
four long years. quite alone. until the same
view has been ''of late" advanced by Gov
Wise, to the extent herein specified. trust
vet, to find that the qualifying clause (and other
like oncs) Of within the limits Of Republican
FORMS" is not inserted as a meaningless exp!e
tive, but was meant TO have the substance
and strength. Of which in its connections it is
fairly capable, that ii was meant TO impair; III,
doctrine that the slave owncr who has the right,
IN virtue of the fcdcratiyc sanctions, TO carry
his negro slaves into a territory, may in the
same strength keep him in the new State, 50
long as the Federal Constitution cndureSa az it is
1t will probably not be p~rolitlcss or unbe
fitting to make 4 few remarks on 4 kindred
topic. | have taken occasion, in the "Indcx'
Of last month, in presenting some views or
the rights of slave owners in newly admitted
States, to make some reflections on late con
fessions from certain strait-laccd Statc-rightS
politicians, that the right and duty Of Congress,
TO lc~islatc over the territories. had of late
wears been neglected and relinquishcd 10 tie
territorial legislatures. on the ground Of some
supposed ~'rc"so0s Of policy Halter my
self, that in the light of facts stated. that poll
cv was shown to have been lifted to ba cml.
nence in the Kansas bill, and advanced TO n
success most lucklcss for the South.
And now an article. copied into tn" National
'Intclligenccr' from the ".SiGtcs. has just faller
under my eye, in which ii is stated, that, fo'
certain specified purposes, 4 scheme is on foo
which is approved by sir. Buchanan and Score
tarv Cass. ito drop all discussion upon inter
~vcntion and non.intcrvention, as non-cssen
tails" Now. | do not refer to all this with any
view to consider the suggestion in any of it
personal relations. We wonid refer 10 TIT
suggestion "to drop the discussion in it
higher relation. Is it true. rs 4 question o
constitutional law or as n question Of materia
interest to the South, that "non-intervention
is an "immaicrial issue" How has it bccoIn,
such. so SOON" Twas but the other day tina
the States were stirred in all their borders ant
the pillars Of their Union shaken in their dcel
foundations, for the sake of what is now calIes
lin the same quarter "a metaphysical abstrac
ton" The people Of the South who have beer
deludcd into that ''impracticable %punctilio o
Ter politicians y-c1ip,d, "non-intervention.
are now having their eyes opened: and 10, il
a tricc, those same sticklcrs for principle VIII,
can rcnouncc right and neglect duty for "rea
sons of policy" can easily discover that thci
recent "policv"is 1.-THE intangible punctilio 0