East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1859-09-29

IN II, but ny more hnpcaton nom It's general rin-
ciples IL might as vol be asserted that the gen.
| eral principles of the Constitution gave Lane and
Montgomery license TO steal horses in the valley Of
| the Usage.
| a. The Supreme Court of the United States has de-
| cided the question. After solemn argument and
careful consideration that august tribunal has an
nounced its opinion to be that 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 l once de-
| cided by the Supreme Court regarded settled
by all, except by that little band of ribald infdels,
who meet periodically at Boston 10 blaspheme the re-
lgon and plot rebellion against the laws Of the coun-
try. The leaders Of the so-called Republican party
have lately been treadng close the heels of their
abolition brethren but il is devOutly 10 be hoped that
Mr. Douglas has no intention to follow their example.
In he is elected President he must tho laws
faithfully executed. Docs he think he keep that
oanl by lighting the judiciary?
| 5. Tho Legislative history of the country shows
that all the great statesmen of former times enter
tanned the same opinion and held II so firmly, that
they did not even think of any other. 1t was uni-
yersally taken for granted that slave remained a
slave, and freeman freeman in the new Terrific
| ries, until change made in their condition by
some positive enactment. Nobody believed that a
slave might not have been taken to, and kept in the
northwest Territory If the ordinance of 1857 some
other regulation had not been made 10 prohibit it,
The Missouri restriction Of 1920 imposed solely
because il was understood (probably by every mem
strcton, slave property would be as lawful in the eye
Of the Constitution above 36 30 as below and all
agreed that the mere absence of restriction did in
fact, make il lawful below the compromise line.
! 8. Ii is right to learn wisdom from enemies
The Republicans do not point to any express pro-
vision of the Constitution, nor to any general prnci
pie embraced in it, to any established rule of law,
which sustans their views. The ablcst men among
them driven by stress Of necessity 10 hunt for
gumonts in n code unrevealed, unwritten and unde-
fled, which they put above the Constitution or tho
| Bible and call il higher law" The ultra Aboli-
tioniss of New England do not deny that the Consti
tuition is rightly interpreted by the Democrats not
interfering against slavery in the Territories but
they disdan to obey what they pronounce TO be "an
agreement with DEATH and covenant with hell"
| T. What did Mr. Douglas when he proposed
and voted for the Kansas Nebraska bill -epcalng the
Missouri restriction? Did he intend to tell Southern
men that, notwithstanding the repeal of the prohib
ition they were excluded from those Territories as
much evcrl Or did he not regard the right of n
master to his slave perfectly good whenever he got
rid of tho prohibition7 Did he, or anybody else at
that Time dream that IL was necessary to make a
| positive law in favor of the stakeholder before he
could go there with safety? To ask these questions
is to answer them. The Kansas-Nebraska bill was
not meant as delusion n snare IL was well I'M
detood that the repeal alone ofthe restriction against
slavery would throw the country open TO everything
| which tho Constitution recognised as property
We have thus given what we believe to be the
opinions held by the great body Of the Democratic
party-namely, that the Federal Constitution does
not establish slavery anywhere in tho Union; that
IL permits black man TO be either held in servitude
made free the local law shall decide; and that
in Territory where local law the subject has
been enacted it keeps both tho slave and the free
gro in the status already impressed upon them, until
IL shall be changed by competent local authority
tic thing Sy great principle Of patc law, by the
words Of the Constitution. by solemn decision of the
Supreme Court, by the whole course of our logisla
tion by the concession Of political opponents and
finally, by the most important act in tho public life
l Of Mr.. Douglas himself
Mr. Douglas imputcs another ahsurdty to his op-
ponents when he charges them with insisting "that
il is the duty Of the judiciary to protect and maintain
slavery in the Territories lrttiout any idie upon the
| subject" The Judge who acts without law acts
against law; and surely sentiment so arocious as
this was entertained by any portion of the Dem
ocratic party. The right of master TO the services
of his slave in Territory is not against law, with
out law, but in full accordance with law If the law
be against II we are all against il. Has not the emf
grant to Nebraska legal right to the team which
he bought in Ohio, to haul him over the plains Is
not his title good to IL in the Territory Il in
the state whore he got il And what should be said
Of judge who tells him that he is not protected or
that he is maintained in the possession of his proper
ty without any law upon the jcct ~ 20
III. We had right to expect from Mr.. Douglas at
least clear and Ineligible definition of his doc
trinc. We are disappointed IL is hardly possible
10 conceive anything more dlffcult 10 cOmprehend-
We will transcribe it again. and do what be done
| 10 analyzc il.
"Thosc who believe that the Constitution Of the
United States neither establishes prohibits slavery
in the States or Territories beyond the power of the
people legally to control it, but leaves the people
thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their do
mestc institutions in their way, subject only to
the Constitution of the United States"
The Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits
sidrery he States or Territories If IL be meant
.t..fs, l..
either cmancpate any mans slave create the con-
dtion of slavery and impose it free negroes, but
leaves tho question Of every black mans status, in
the Territories as well in the States to he deter
mined by the local law then We admit it, for il Is the
very same proposition which we have been trying TO
prove But it, the contrary, 1t is to be understood
rs assertion that the Constitution does not permit
master to keep his slave free negro to have his
liberty, in all parts of tho Union where the local law
does not interfere TO prevent H. then tho is not
only very grave one but it is also absurd and solf-
contradictory.
The Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits
sldrery in The States or Territories beyond the
poieer Qfhe people legally 10 control H. This s sail
ing TO Point No-Point again. OF course subject
which is legally controlled cannot be beyond the
power that controls it. But the question is, what
constitutes legal control and when the people Of n
State or Territory arc in condition TO exercise Il
The Constitution Of The United States
| leaves the people perfectly free and
subject only 10 dc Constitution QfGe United Stnies.
This carries us round full circle aud drops us pre-
ciscly ut the place of beginning. That the Constu-
ton leaves everybody subject TO the Constitution, is
most true. We are far from denying it. We never
heard It doubted and expect we never will But tho
statement Of il proves nothing, defines nothing and
explains nothing II merely darkens the subjects,
words without meaning always do.
But notwithstanding all this circuity of expression
and consequent opaqucncss of meaning in the maga-
zine article of MIR Douglas, think guess
what his opinions will be when he comes TO re-
consider the subject lie will admit (at least he will
not undertake TO dcny) that the status Of a negro
whether Of sorvitude freedom, accompanies him
wherever he goes, and adhcges TO him in every part
OF the Union until hc meets local law which
changes IL.
IL win also be agreed that the people Of State,
through their Legislature, and the people Of Terri
tory in the constitution which they may frame pre-
paratory t) their admission State, regulate
and control the condition Of the subject black race
within their respective Jurisdictions SO as to make
them bond or free.
| But we here come 10 the point at which opinions
diverge Some insist that citizen can be deprived
Of his property In slaves, in anything clso ea<cpf
by the provisous OF state Constitution or by the act
of State Legislature while others contend that an
unlimited control over private rights may be
cised by Territorial Legislature soon the car
aiest settlements are made.
SO strong are the sentiments Of Mr.. Douglas in fa-
vor of the latter doctrine that If IL be not established
he threatens US with Mr. Stewards "irrepressbe con-
| nici," which shall end only with the universal abo-
4. ...rnl