The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1859-11-24

, the constitution prevail equally over all the
, Union? Does not the very language of the
Second Section of the IVth Article of the
Constitution of the United States declare
that 1.-THE citizens of each State shall be en-
titled to all Privileges and Immunties of cit-
izens in the several States" r-rs..rr.. ....
Yet we find that citizens of Massachusetts
, possess, and have possessed for over ,ffty
, years. certain privileges in the matter of
changing their domicils, which the citizens of
Virginia do not possess. One can go to Ohio
and carry his property and keep it. The
, either. cnnnot. And yet demagogues would
have Southern men believe that no discrin-
lnation against their property ought to exist
or rerer did erist, and that to enforce such
discrimination in the settlement of new States
would be to esta6lih a distinction between
certain classes of property which the South
cannot, in honor, submit to! ...l... ......... s.
If Slavery cannot 90 into the Free States
and maintain itself, why should it expect to
60 into Free Territories and maintain itself
there being in neither case local laws to pro-
tect it? Is not the Constitution of the Uni
ted States as vigorous, as comprehensive,
and as just in Ohio as it is in Kansas Does
it not regard the property-t1e resteI rights
of all citizens, in all places OF the Republic,
as equally sacred? If Slavery is national-
if it exists in the Constitution itself-how
can the Constitution permit an owner of such
property to be despoiled of it in Free State.
any more than in a Free Territory2 Can a
State be permitted to nullify the rights of
man in property that is recognised i'm the
Constitution of the United States-and the
; Federal Government have no power to inter-
fcre? OF course not; for the Constitution
says that ''the United States shall guarantee
10 every State Republican form of Govern
ment." But such State Government des-
polling man of his right wosld not be Re
publican but Despotic 1t is clear. thar if
Slavery be tie rule--if it be nationalist it
erists an the Constitution, and is carried
wherever the Constitution prevails--that it is
as sacred in Ohio as in Kansas, and as firm
iy to be upheld in either, as on the banks of
the Sabine. Wherever the flag of the Union
floats, there every citizen is entitled to pro-
lection in aNhis rights, that are National and
Constitutional Such would be the case with
regard to Slave property, if Slavery is Ma
tional
Bnt this is not So Tt is not claimed even
by the South, and never has been, that
Slave owner has right to remove with his
negroes toa Free State, and call on the Uni
ted States Government to protect him in his
property. Yet his right to 90 to Free State
is as perfect, under the United States Con
stitutien, aSit is to go to Free Territory -
Was Kansas acquired by 'the common blood
and treasure of the Union ?'' So was iowa
and what right has Iowa, any more than
Kansas, to discriminate against property so
as to deprive the citizens of any portion of
the Unicn of their National and Constitution
alrightS? This discrimination against Slave
property, as regards emigration into Free
States, we have thus shown, has always ex-
listed, and never by the South been thought
a hardship. And why2 Because, perhaps,
the citizens Of the Slave States felt that in
the privilege to cote on their S1nres, that spe-
cies of property had obtained q peculiar and
transcendent advantage over all other proper
ty in the Union, that more than compensated
for its one restriction, to-wit: that il should
not enter into ard establish itself in Free
States.
If the South is tired Of this discrimination
against Slave property, which has existed
since the Government was established, and
desires it abandoned, then the South should
propose to abandon, also, the privileges
that such property enjoys. Surely it is
"nly fair that property should in point of
fact, become equal before it claims to 90 as
equot into the common territory Of the Union.
lfthe South decline the one, how can it fair
ly claim the other? ....s ....
Mr.. Bates does not, therefore, regard the
non admission of Slavery into the Territories
of the Union as establishing distinction be-
tween property; but simply as maintaining
distinction already established, willingly as
SSiitSu W ny tiie Soutu at tnp IOrfnatlOn OF
the Government, and ever since 1t is only
at the instance of mischievous demaeogues
that the South is now tempted to change its
position, and abandon the literal and the
traditional compromises of the Constitution
Asa true and upright citizen, who loves his
country's well-kept faith, as he does his own
private honor, Mr.. Bates opposes the attempt
of Southern fanatics to make Slavery overlap
its original rights, limitations, and relations
to other property of the Union.
Inasmuch as the entire Democratic party
Iof the Free States are as decidedly opposed
as even the Republican party, to the extern
sion of Slavery over Territory previously
free, it is quite evident that Congress will
never intervene to protect Slave property in
the Territories. Such being the fact, those
Southern men, who object to Mr.. Bates as a
Slavery restrictionist, might vel ask them
selves whether more Of honor or advantage is
gained by asking what cannot be had, and
submitting to The fatal necessity of denial