Daily national Democrat., 1859-04-03

their rights under the Constitution he say
that the Constitution gives them the right t
carry slaves into the Territories. Where
Will the Senator give me the article and tn
section Where is it2 There is no sucl
provision. We are told that slavery is re
cO2uized in the Constitution. Certainly; an,
wherein 1t is recognized as an institution
established by the laws Of the States, and i
IS even recognized as having no extra terri
torial force whltever; because, hut for tn
provision for the redelivery of fugitives, it i
evident that the moment slave escaped on
OF the Sta'e the power of his master woald b,
gone Iou needed that in the Constitution
and it was put in the Constitutio. to suppl,
Il defect In that very form ofproperty. | be
lleve the Psalmist tells us that riches hav,
wings. This form of property seems to hav,
legs, if not wings and that provision of tn,
Constitution was put there for the expires
purpose of guarding the weakness of the dis
position to emigrate of that species of prop
erty. That you shall have, to the last extent
Then the Constitution said that nasmuch as
although this form of property was a man
you had robbed him of his manhood and con.
demned him to labor. it, too, would strip him
of two tifths of his humanity when it came to
estimate him either for purposes of taxation
Or representation. That is all within the
states. Then it was provided that Congress
might prohibit any more Of that propertybe-
ing brought into this country after the year
1903, and might tax it per capita before that
time. That is all.
admit that it is recognized in all these
relations as form of property established by
the laws of the States, to he protected with
in the States; TO be protected on the high
seas hy the Federal Government; to be pro.
tected in the unoccupied Territories of the
United States as against all foreign interv,n-
tion. But, sir. repeat the question of my
colleague, does it carry it into those States
which do not choose to admit that property?
Has the Constitution that extent Does its
recognition of slaves as property to that eX
tent carry them, not only upon the high seas
and into the Territories, but does it carry
them into the State of Illinois, which has un-
dertaken to declare that she will not have
them? If there be anything in this consti-
tutional right which the Senator from Vir
ginia has invoked, it is right which extends
over Illinois as well as over Kansas to-day.
for the Constitution of the United States is as
supreme in Illinois as it is in Kansas There
is no such right and the court did not say so.
The court said that Congress had no tight to
pass acts of legislation for the Territories be
yond certain limits, and within those limits
the right to prohibit any form of property
was not granted. Therefore, when a citizen
of South Carolina or Kentucky goes to one of
the Territories he meets the local law, what
ever it be. The question may arise whether,
in the absence of any legislation, he can hold
his slave? That is a question to be decided
by the judiciary. There may be question
whether this form of legislation or that form
of legislation would deprive him of his title
or injure his title. Let him go to the courts.
Suppose the Dred Scott decision should be re.
versed about year hence that there should
be change in the court; and | believe the
Senator from New York threatened US last
session that he was going to bring in bill
increasing the number of judges, like the rail
road propositions Of watering their stock, so
as to swamp the present majority.
Mr. DAVIS With the permission of the
Senator from Ohio, | will ask him whether
he understood the Senator from Virginia to
assert that the Constitution of the United
States would give the right to carry this
property into the limits of State where it is
prohibited.
Mr. PuGH. No, sir; but say that his
proposition is nothing, unless it goes to that
extent.
Mr. DAVIS. In the absence of my friend
from Virginia, would say that his theory.
believe, agrees with nine and certainly does
not go to that extent. l, is that the Consti-
tuition makes it property throughout the U.
States. 1t can, therefore, be taken and held
wherever the sovereign power of a State has
not prohibited it, When it reaches the terri
tory of n sovereign State where its introduc-
tion is inhibited, it there stops; except for the
reserved right to recover "A fugitive, and for
the right of transit which belongs to every
citizen Of the United States. That is the de
cison of the Supreme Court
Mr. PUGH | repeat my assertion; if the
Consultation Of the United States gives this
form Of property its peculiar protection, as
gentlemen as ert, and the right 20 carry it. l.
i carried into every State over the consitu-
ion and laws of the State; for the Constitu-
zion of the United States is supreme above
the constitution and laws Of the States; and
1t means that, or it means nothing. There is
no distinctions; there can be none made; and
my colleague put the very question which
proved the fallacy of the whole pIopos ion.
Bat Senators say there is no sovereignty
III the Territories. | agree To that; but
why do we deceive ourselves about words Z?
There is no such language as sovereignty in
the Constitution of the United states. Sena-
tors say it requires power of sovereignty to
exclude slavery, and the Senator from Missis
sippi has Just now spoken of the sovereignty
of the stare which excludes slavery. Hes Us
it requires sovereign power to exclude slave
ry. Well, how is that sovereignty to be eX-
pressed
Mr. DAVIS When State, being a sove-
reigu, by its organic law excludes that spe
cies Of property, the act is final. There is no
sovereignty in the Constitution, as the Sena-
tor states, and why Because the Cohslitu.
ton is a compact between sovereigns creating
an agent with delegated powers; and sove-
reignty is an indivisible thing. They gave
functions of sovereignty from their plenary
power Sovereignty remained wit. the peo-
PIE of the states.
Mr.. PUGH. Then | understand the Sena-
tor that the sovereignty can only speak
through constitution, and that it is in the
constitution of State only that the power to
admit or exclude slavery is to be exercised.
Why. sir, until the year 500 not State of
this Union, in her constitution, either admit
ted or excluded slavery, and do not believe
Virginia did until 1850 or 1851. None of
the States did it until Missouri when she
came into the Union, and she put it into her
constitution. not upon the idea that it was
peculiarly the place, but for the express pur
pose Of disarming her Legislature. 1t was
an ordinary legislative power, nothing else
in the world; known and recognized ms such
and admitted as such by every State in the
Union. New York abolished slavery by law,
and in the States where the institution con-
tinued, it was fostered, protected, and recog-
died by ordinary acts of legislation.
Mr. DAVIS. | am sorry to interrupt the
Senator again, and believe this will be the