Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-09-16
opcrpVlTI6N9

| TelgnIu, us tIpTtS"e" ~
zine for September, 1872
The above is. the title oil p"'hP",e. '"'e'
n,b,;sbcd from which we make the following
extract: &C.,
-. nouclasl has discussed the subject, and cn-
That he has no: correctly stated the doc
trine held by his opponents; and,
.. That his own opinions, as given by him
self. arc unsound.
!. lie saws that a certain portion of the Dem
ocratic party believe, or profess to believe, that
| tie Constitution establishes siacfly in the Ter
ritorics, and insist that it is the duty of the 'u
dietary to maintain it there mithoat any Jar
ON the subject We do not charge him with
any intention to be unfair; but we assert that
he has in fact done wrong to, probably nine-
tecn.twcn,cths of the party, ny attempting
! to p,l. them on grounds which they never chose
! for themselves.
The Constitution certainly does not eSfa0t'Sh
slavery in the territories, nor anywhere eiSe.
| Nobody in this country ever thought or said
so. But the Constitutions regards rs sacred and
! hvolablc all the rights which citizen may le-
cally acquire in State. II Il man acquires
property of anv kind in = State, and goes win
! il into Territory he is not for that reason 10
be striped Of it. Our simple and pam propo-
sition is that the legal owner OF slave OF othcr
chattcl NAV 20 with i: into Federal Territory
without forftiting his title.
Who denies the truth of this, and upon what
ground can it he controversial: The reasons
which support it are very obvious and very
conclusive As urist and statesman. Mr..
DOUGLAS ought to bc familiar with them, and
there WAS a time when he was supposed to
understand them very well. We Will briefly
give him few of them
!. 1t is an automatic principle OF public law
that a right Of property, private rciatioii'
condition, or status, lawfully existing III one
State or country, is not changed by the mere
removal of the parties to another country,
unless the law Of that other country be i'll
direct conflict with it. For instance: y mar
rage legally solemnzed in France Is hudins
in America children born in Germany are
legitimate here if they are Legitimate there;
and merchant who buys goods IN New lork
according to the laws Of that State may carry
them to Illinois, and hold them there under his
contract. 1t isprccisely 50 with the st"t"s oi Il
negro carried from one part OF the uhi'eu
! States to another; the question OF his freedom
or scryitudc depends on the law OF the place
where he came from, and depends on tla'
alone. if there be no conflicting law NJ the
place to which he goes or is taken. Inc redc-
raj Constitution therefore, recognizes slavery
as 4 legal condition wherever the local govern
mcnts have chosen TO let 1t stand unaholl>hcd
and regards it as illegal wherever the laws oil
the place have forbidden it. \ slave being
property in Virginia, remains property and
his master has all the rights of Virginia
L L., CO hat hp nnt
TO any place where the local law comes in con-
Aict with his right. 1t will not be pretended
that the Constitution itself furnishes to the
Territories a conflicting law. 1t contains no
provision that can be tortured into any SEM
blance OF a prohibition.
.. The dispute or the question whether
slavery or freedom is local or genera, is mere
war OF words. The black race in this country
is neither bond nor free by virtue of any gene
raj law. That portion of it which is free is free
by virtue Of some local regulation, and the slave
owes service for similar reason. The ConStl-
tuition and laws of the United States simply de-
clare that everything done in the premises By
the State governments is right, and they shall
be protected in carrying it out But free ne
yrocs and slaves may both find themselves out
Side of any State jurisdiction. and i'll Terrific
nv where no regulation has yet been made on
the subject. There the Constitution is equally
impartial. 1t neither frees the slave nor en-
slaves the freeman 1t requires both to remain
in stair quo until the st'itus already impressed
upon them by the law of their previous domi.
Gil shall be changed by some competent local
authority. What is competent local authority
in Territory will be elsewhere considered.
9. The Federal Constitution carefully guards
the rights OF private property against the
Federal Government ITSELF 10y declaring that it
shall not be taken for public use without COM
pcnsation, nor without due process oil law
Slaves are private property, and every man
who has taken an oath of fidelity to the Con
sttution is reiigionsly. morally, and politically
bound to regard them as such. Does ANYBODY
SUPPOSE that Constitution which acknow-
lodges the sacredness of private property so
fully would wantony destroy that right, not
by any words that are found in it, but by mere
implication from its general principles: 1t
mieht as well be asserted that the general
PRINCIPLES Of the Constitution gave Lane and
MONTGOMERY n license to steal horses in the
valley Of the Usage.
I. The Supreme Court of the United States
has decided the question. After solemn argl-
mcnt and careful consideration, that august
tribunal has announcedit its opinion TO be that a
STAKEHOLDER, BY going into Federal Territory,
does not lose the title he had TO his negro in
the State from which he came. In former
times. question of constitutional law once de-
cidcd hy the Supreme Court was regarded as
settled by all, except that little band Of ribald
infdcls, who meet periodically at Boston to
blasphemc the religion and plot rebellion
against the laws of the country. The leaders
of the so.called Republican party have lately
been trcading close on the heels OF their abolition
brethren; but it is devoutly to be hoped that
Mr.. Douglas has no intention to follow their
example. In case ne is elected President, Inc
must see the laws faithfully executed. Does
he think lie can keep that oath by fighting the
judiciary
3. The legislative history Of the country
shows that ;ul the great statesmen OF former
times entertained the same opinion and held II
: so firmly that they did not even think of any
other. 1t was universally taken for granted
that n slave remained slave, and free man q
free man, in the new territories, until change
was made in their condition by some positive
enactment. Nobody believed that a slave might
not have hcen taken to and kept in the North
west Territory if the ordinance Of 1877 or somt
other regulation had not been made to prohibit
it. The Missouri restriction Of 1920 was imposed
solely because it was understood probably by
every member of that Congress- that, in the
absence of n restriction, slave property would
be as lawful in the eye of the Constitution above
sc deg. 80 min as below; and all agreed that
the mere absence of a restriction did, in fact
make it lawful below the compromise line.
6. 1t is right to learn wisdom from our enc
mics. The Republicans do not point TO any
express provision of the Constitution, nor tc
any general principle embraced in it, nor to any
established rule Of law. which suStainS Their
views The abcSt men among them are driver
by stress of necessity to hunt for arguments ir
code unrcvcalcd, unwrittcn, and underlined
which they put above the Constitution or tho
Bible, and call it "highcr law" The ultra abo
itionists Of New England do not deny that the