Kanawha Valley star. [volume] (Charleston, Va. [W. Va.]) 1856-1861, 1859-10-31


! owner of aslkve or other ohattel. by 60
j iag viii -iken intD 3 T@ritofy, thereby
forfeited bis title There 6 4 broae
iihs 81 difsreece between what Judge D
does SAY. and What the administrator
makes him say % this point. IL 4 slav,
i ckrer carry his slave 70 = Territory
where there has been no adverse legisla
ton he is entitled under the Gonstitu
y ton 70 hold that slave. IS BE would othel
property NJ afterwards, the Territorial
Legislatures ins which hs is represented
and-of which he forms ! part, pass laws
abolishing sisverysin the TerritoFy, he
himself In contemplation Of law II cog;
nisant pf and iasseating to the actlpf The
Legislature. That cannot be "forfeit,
ure. to which one sssenis. A forfeiture
in terms. implies 4 penalty enforced b
/, ! superior, oysr 40 inferior, for some OF
fence committed against law. There car
be no such thing as Republic FORGETTING
their own property. BY al act Of their
own Legislation, without their consent.
Neither the State NOR Territory in q Re.
public would hares 4 right 70 legislate
away the property of an citizen without
compensation, Of afordingH him an OPP
portunity 10 dispose 81 1T. Il is Believed
that this rule Of legislation ID observed
IN alt civilized governments where the
viii Of the King is not the Supreme law,
In the States, this is regulated BY their
Constitutions, in the Territories and 10
Congress. BY. the Constitution. f, .s
But if slave owner take his slave into
d State Or Territory. where the local law
prohibits Involuntary seraitude, he does
It with his eyes open, and justly forfeits
it. He has no right natural Or Consti-
tutiofail to demand Of b free people to
mould their laws, institutions and habits
of life to suit him. He has as much
right TO demand thiszof | .ooo, 600 people
10 q State. as of go, 900 people in a Ter
ritory. 80. 600 people have as much
right to provide laws (subject g the
Gonstitutiofi) for themselves in Terri..
tory, as 100000 people have to pro-
vide laws for themselyes ina Stsses Lo-s
cal legislationii u necessary for every civ
iized people The eminent domain of
the soil Of the Territories is in the gener-
d government. and the sovereignty Of
the pedllle in Terfiterytis ID allegiance,
aFaiting its formation into 4 Slate. -
Were itfnol o,they could only come in
tothe Unioa byshne xation. Sovereignty
being in expectation. exists with some Of
It's attributes among the people, awaiting
lie rplenary powers. BY q transfer Of the
eminent domain. il may be only in part
from the general government TO the State
throughthe acquired rights Of its CITIZENS
lii the soil; for there can be no such
thiag Al 4 State being formed out ef 9 Ter Fes
ritory. until The people have acquired at
least 4 qualified right to aIportioh Of the
soil. The Federal Territory belongs f.
The people at large, but when portion
Of the people enter upon property sub /
isct to general occupancy and approprl-
sats ii to themselves, il ceases TO be the
property ofrthet whole people, and be-
comes the propertyFef the people who
havs appropriated it, when The people
enter upon and purchase the sol, the
general government takes the purchase
money for The part appropriated and the
money stands, as to the government, as
tie soil had stood before it was appropria- i
tad. Now. the right To- own property
draws after it the right 10 enjoy it, and
the enioymentof 81 involves legislation by
the people who own il. We admit thu
proposition, "that the, Constitution re-
CARDS as sacred and Iinviolate all the
rights thatia citizen may legally acquire
in . State But why does the Constr
tuition do. this !? Because i respects the
local law.
.] II theLcitizen Of Virginia remove to
New York withahis slave, to reside, the
Constitution again yields to the local law:
The samernle exists ip a Territory, which
has adopted an anti slave code. In this
instance, land this ID the only one at is
suerhere. the aaxionatie principles, Of
public law" cited BY the Attorney Gen
sraI have no application, because III is
property Of that species, which may have.
been deprived ofits character Of property
AT all by local law. His several axiom
attic principles" are true in themselves
and yaslthey establish nothing IN this case.
That marriage in. Virginia is marriage in
Nav York, does not prove that the rela-
ton Of masterand slave in Virginia will
follow them to New Fork, # the master
take the slave there to remain. !. Chill
|drea born 10 Virginia, are legitimate in
New York, if legitimatelin Virgins"
but the child ofths, Virginia slave ID free
iii New York, il carried there TO live. If
there be no CoAtroling local law at the
place. to which 1.-The master carries his
Islavs, the statue Of slavery WILDE contin-
ued al recognised bJ the local law of the
placs from Whjchthe came The Consti,
tuition does not furnish to the Territories,
orito the States, any conflicting local laws.
ItIdoes not furnish any local laws. All
it's laws are general He says /: the Con
stitution does hot establish slavery IL the
Territories, or,any whore else " Neither
does Il give thisyiight to Congress The
Attorney GeneralFof the u S. should, al
least, understand the general outlines of.
. decision Of the Sapre,ae Court. .
f5s The supreme court decided the ques
tion before it, aud none other. 4n the
tDred Scott case. there had been no local
Legislation. aad Tie question came before
The court, upon aIstate Of facts. upon the
Law Of which WI are all agreed Ii is