Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1859-11-24

feo'ES ofeuoyyTec' ff.e III ret
Mr.. Bates. in bis political creed is
Henry Clay Wing; and Mr.. Clay declared
that his right arm should drop from his
shoulder" before he would vote to extend
slavery over one foot of territory already
free. Mr.. Bates heartily endorses that SEN !
timent and holds to that creed.
Mr.. Bates does not believe that the Con- I
stitution, by its proper vigor carries Slave |
nv into all the territories that may be ac-
quircd by the United States. He believes
that freedom is the rule, and slavery the
exception. He does not believe that slave
ry can exist in any territory acquired by
the Government of the United States, ex-
cept blythe posit;ce lar of Congress. That
positive law Mr.. Bates would not be in la
vor Of passing. because for reasons already
given. he is opposed the extension of slave
ry into territory already free..
DISTINCTION BETWEEN SLAVE AND OTHER
PROPERTY coEvAL WITH THE GOVERNMENT.
If it be held that this exclusion Of Slave
property from Territory acquired by the
common blood and treasure OF the Union"
establishes an invilious distinction between
two sections Of the Union-that it denies
to the South rights that are freely given to
| the North-Mr. Bates denies emphat-
ically that it has any such effect. The
distinction complained Of is coeval with
the Government 1t is no new thing
no modern hardship-in fact no hard
ship at all The local;zing of slavery-the
prohibition ofits emigrating and establish
ing itself in Free Territory, was embodied
in the compact Of the Union. at the begin
ming. But for this limitation the Slave
States got far moro than their equivalent
in being allowed in the National Congress
and in Presidential elections three vctes for
erery fre slapes Slaves do not vote, but
their masters vote for them. The votes of
f,ro men in the South. connt as much as
the votes Of fire men in the Free States.
WHY should this be so? If Slaves are
only property. as the Southern man will
saw. why should not the Northern mans
property vote also 1t is all only property.
I When the stakeholder is disposed to COM
plain. therefore, that distinction is made
against him-that he can't go into the COM
mon Territory of the country AMI take his
property. the citizen of the free State can
reply: 1T is not property like my proper
ty that you wish to take, but it is property
that yotes. it is property that gives you tro
and halt rotes TO my one-it is property
that makes me inferior 10 you, IN our rela-
tions to the Federal Government; and this
| is not fair when we come to occupy what
has been bought by ''the common blood
and treasure of the Union
This distinction between free property
and slave property, is. as before stated, as
old as the Constitution itself. 1t there
were no Territories at all, the same dis
tinction would exist. a citizen of New
York can remove his domicil to the State
Of Ohio and carry all Ais property With him
and hold Il. a citizen of Virginia cannot
remove to the State of Ohio and carry all
his property with him and hold it. He
can't do it now He couldn't 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 all over the
| Union? Does notthe very language Of
the second section of the WITH article of
the Constitution of the United States de-
clare that "the citizens of each State shall
be entitled to all privileges and immuni
ties of citizens in the several States?"
SLAVERY Is NOT PROTECTED BY THE coNsTI-
TUITION BUT ONLY BY LOCAL LAW.
Yet we find that citizens of Massachu-
setts possess and have possessed for over
ffiy gears, certain privileges in the matter
of changing their domiciles, which the cit
liens Of Virginia 10 not possess. One can
go to Ohio and carry his propety and keep
it. The other cannot. And yet ,ie,nagogues
would have Southern men believe that no
determination against their property ought
to exist oreper did erist, ami that to enforce
such discrimination in the settlement Of
new States would he to cstaJlish distinc-
ton between certain classes of property
which the South cannot, in honor, submit
to! ihtNt HfE fr8aa o8f lsAl
IL slavery cannot go into the Free States
and maintain itself. why should it expect
to go into Free Territories and maintain it.
to protect it? Is not the Constitution of
the United States as vigorous. as compre-
hensive, AMI as Just in Ohio as it is in Kan
sas? Does it not regard the propefy--the
rested rights-of all citizens. in all places
of the Republic, as equally sacred? II
slavery is notional--ifit it exists in the Con-
stitution itself-how can the Constitution
permit an owner Of such property to be
dcspoiled of it in Free State, any more
than in Free Territory! Can State be
permitted to nulify the right of man in
property that is recognized in the Consti-
tion Of the United States--and the FeJer-
al Government have no power to interfere?
OF course not: for the Constitution says
that 'fhc United States shall guarantee to
every State Republican form of Govern
mcnt.'' But s.,ch State Government des-
polling man of his rights would not be
Republican but DespotisQ 1t is clear. that
il slavery be the rale--if it be national-if
it exists in the Consultations. and is carried
wherever the tho Constitation prevails
that it is as sacred in Ohio as in Kansas.
anil as firmly to be upheld in either. as on
the banks Of the Sabine. Wherever the
flag Of the Union floats, every citizen is en-
titlcd to protection in all his rights, that
lare National and Constitutional. Such
would be the case with regard to slave
l.