Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-03-23

 auestions-did not undertake to aboli slavery, but only prohibited its future ests lishment. These are the facts of the ca and the Senator ought to know them, I presume he does But even if the acts the Mexican government were valid and h been carried into effect, the moment country was annexed to the Ufted Stats it would be property belonging to Union. Then what? If Congress ha
 the power to prohibit slavery in terr
 already belonging to it, if it buys terr.
 and annexes it to itself, then a previ
 prohibition, inconsistent with the powe Congress, would cease and determine
 moment the annexation was made. Nc trust the Senator understands me perft ly. I intend to deceive no one upon [ point. The view 1 take of the subject
 to my mind, clear and distYct. If 1 d wrong, I am ready to bessadyised of tn error: but my convictions are so strong tn nothing short of powerful reasons willie
 induce me to change them. The supre
 court has decided that slaves are proper
 They go into the territories, and the que ton has been sprung up here whether t. | the specific law of 1854, can prohibit an abolish slavery by direct or indirect legisl, 1 tion, or by non-action. Ianswer, they c, do neither; and if they were to undertak to do either, and thereby destroy the right of citizens, it would be the duty of Con gress to intervene. 1 hold, first, that thel can do neither; but if they should, it would
 be obligatory on Congress to interpose.- The purpose of government being the pro
 lection of persons and property, ~henevea
 any subordinate power, acting under the
 United States authority, contravenes thos(
 great ends of government, it becomes tho
 duty of the superior power to mserpose to
 protect the rights of persons and property
 The doctrine of interference by Con
 gress with slavery in the territories means!
 and can only mean, that Congress should
 neither esta5ltsh nor prohi6a it. That is all
 Leave those questions to the constitution
 and the courts But whatever rights ind
 viduals have in the territory, may demand
 and when demanded, must have adequat
 protection. This can injure no one an
 affords no cause of complaint to any sec,
 tion of the Union.
 It has been admitted by the Senator from
 Illinois, that Congress has the same power( and the territory has the same power, and no more, over slaves as other property in the territory. Now, 1 ask this question distinctly, in the presence of the Senator,< can the territorial legislature of Kansas : Nebraska, or Utah, prohibit the introduc-S ton of any other kind of property? Can Il n, rafrorI f., ,n,, z
 property? For 1 hold If they cannot, by direct means prohibit it, neither can they by dishonest, indirect means, adromplish the same thing That which you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly; and 1t IS dishonest subterfuge to presume that ? such will be done. Can you prohibit the } introduction of mules, of horses, of blows, of patent reapers? No, they are property known to the constitution. Are not slaves property known to the constitution? Yes. Can they then be prohibited? The Senator says, yes; 1 answer, no. The power to } prohibit one is co-extensive with the power to prohibit the other: and no legislative
 authority in the territory or out of the ter ritory will permit of a discrimination be-
 tween different species of property, so far as its protection and security are concerned. But he says this thing may be done by '' uyriendly Legislation" What is meant ,, by unfriendly legislation? Unfriendly to my rights; unfriendly to my property! 1 had thought that rights, rights of persons and property, were beyond the power of legislation. Undertake to make the asser- tion, and defy contradiction, that without the special transference of authority, there never was a legislative body in existence on the face of the globe that could justly take any right of person or property from 5 ci tizen without rendering just cOmpensa- tion. This is implied in the great princi : pies of magma charta. It is but the ex- pression of the honest hearts of the British people when they extorted magma charta
 from King John; and when the principle was transferred to the American continent, it was planted, took deep root, has grown up into magnificent tree until it over shadaws and shelters the whole Union.- But how easy 1t is to trample down a mi- nority. How easy to stop every privilege when the dominant swelling mob, headed
 by some bold leader carrying a majority
 says, l choose to sacrifice you to the ac- complishment of my ends. Justice, truth,
 right, and correct principle, have said that one mans rights are as sacred as the rights
 of nine hundred and ninety-nine forget
 the quotation, but 1 remember having read
 1t when 1 was boy, and that was a long
 time ago; but wise man was asked his
 definition of the best government, and he
 answered, that government which Is ready l tn ,1f +c bo r,crbtS of the humblest citizen. If 1 were asked
 to give my opinion of the greatest excel
 lence of the American government, would
 say 1t Is that principle which permits if to
 make use of money and men, to shed blood,
 and to do anything to protect the rights of
 the most humble citizen from being violat-
 ed; and yet l am told that those persons . who have property of a certain kind in a
 territory, are to be sacrificed by the terri
 torlal legislature, under the guise of "un-
 friendly legislation" My view is to put
 all species of property on the same basis
 of protection. Twill never exalt the rights
 of the owners of slaves, above the rights
 of owners of other property. They are
 equal-not superior.
 But it has been admitted by the Senator
 from Illinois, and 1 hold him to the ad-
 mission, that territory has no power ex-
 cept what is conferred by Congress. Is
 there any power to make such discrimina-
 tion in the organic act creating the territo-
 rial government? He says all legislative
 power is conferred that is not inconsistent
 with the constitution l have two answers
 to make to that assertion. First, if the
 power to destroy any kind of property was
 conferred, 1t would be inconsistent with the
 constitution; 1t would be destruction of
 private rights; and would be breaking
 down of the great barriers between right
 and wrong, and, therefore, void. The se-
 cond answer is this: if all legislative power,
 not inconsistent with the constitution, is
 conferred by the organic act then the pow
 CT to institute steps to form the Lecompton
 constitution was undeniable; one ol the< other must be, true. He may take either
 horn of the dilemma. If all legislative l ,oo,yor ;o oonfarra1 that iO mol ;noone;o+or+