The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-09-12
John Bell on protection---Does not
.s Favor it in all the Territories
Leg Loci.

tessssg .EaVof IL In Ill stno ASA4AeV4 1Se
Lex Loci.
Hon. John Bell, it cannot be denied, has
voted for the last ten years against the South
and his own party, upon every question affect.
ing directly the interests Of the South. This
his record shows. Hence his selection for the
Presidency by that party which at the North
has freesoil proclivities hence the admission
of the Aboltionist, Horace Greeley, in a
speech at Ossawattomie, that he would sup
port Bell; hence the reluctance of Southern
Opposition journals to place Bells name at
their masthead for many weeks after his
nomination. Having no platform now to stand
upon, it is the policy of the Opposition to ig-
more party creeds, albeit it was the alpha and
omega of their objections to the Democratic
party in the last campaign. that their platform
was susceptible oftwo constructions. Driven
to the wall, they at last extract from the pub
lie speeches Of John Bell few sentences
which mislead the public as. to his true posi-
ton. The extract is garbled, and we call
upon the Opposition press to publish the
whole truth, by which it will be seen that
John Bell is not in favor of protection in all
the Territories. Let our Democratic friends
stick pin here. Upon the issue before the
people, that of the duty of the Federal Gov
ernment to protect the slave. owner in his
rights Of property in ALL the Territories, John
polI =. Al, A.
Constitution, in application" to a Territory"
cannot @sUpERcEDE the LOCAL laws in force
prohibiting slavery, when the United States
came in possession of it.''
This is bis position, and we defy contra
diction. This protection is partial, not abso-
Lutte. According to Mr.. Bells theory, the
flag of the Union extends over one Territory,
and not over another. The Constitution is
in force in one, and not in the other. The
lez loci oyerrides the Constitution; the local
laws cannot be superseded, because, forsooth,
.squatter sovereignty began before the cession
of the Territory to the Union. What doc
trine for public man! If slavery is prohib-
tied in Territory prior to its cession to the
United States, the law must remain in force
the Constitution cannd protect slave property
until these laws are removed This is the
very essence of squatter sovereignty. A Ter
rtory where there is no sovereignty, existing
by authority Of its creator, Congress itself
its Governor, Judge, and other officers, ap-
pointed and removed by the Government at
pleasure, has the power, and can pass laws
prohibiting slavery, which must remain in
full force after its acquisition, the Constitu-
ton, propria vigore, the flag of the Union,
cannot @supercede'' it, and protect the citizen
in the enjoyment of his rights Of property of
every description. This is Mr.. Bells posi-
ton. But here is the mutilated extract going
the rounds in the Opposition press:
"The Constitution, pyopr1a vsgue, the flag
Of the Union, protects the citizen in the en- |
joyment Of his right of property of every de-
scription, recognized as such in any Of the
States, on every sea and in every Territory in
the Union. The soundness of the general |
doctrine held on this point / think, cannot
well be questioned or disproved; and if the
question related to Territory situated as
Oregon was when the United States came
into possession of it, property in Slaves acouid
Be entitled to the prote.tioa of the laws and
Constitution Of Tie United States"
The extract from Mr.. Bells speech, from
which the above is garbled, is as follows:
"Still it is contended that the South is Sc
cured in the full benefit of the doctrines held
by some of the most distinguished champions
of ffa xbak
ton, propriG vigors, that the flag of the Union
protects the citizen in the enjoyment of his
rights of property, of every description, re-
cognized as such in any Of the States, on ev.
cry sea and in every Territory of the Union.
And this doctrine, it is said, if well founded,
and if it is so declared by the Supreme Court,
il will authorize the introduction of slavery
into New Mexico. The soundness of the
general doctrine held on this point, / think.
cannot well be questioned or disproved and
If the question related to Territory situated
IS Oregon was when the United States came
into possession of it, property in slaves would
be entitled to the protection OF the laws and
Constitution Of the United States; but the
question Is more doubtful and formidable to
the interests Of the South, where it is raised
in reference to New Mexico, where there has
been an organized society and government for
two centuries, and where slavery was prohib-
tied by the local sovereignty before and at the
date Of cession to the United States and
where, under that prohibition slavery had .
ceased to exist. The Constitution, in applica-
ton to this Territory, is expected not merely ,
TO protect property in slaves as in the case Of
oregon BEFORE there was any exercise OF SOW
ereignty upon the subject one way or the
,ther, bht to supgcede tie local la,cs tn force
slavery, when the United States
anne into possession Of IT, If the distractions
BY these laws were removed, then
he principles Of the Constitution would be /,
eft 70 their full and fair operation, and the
south might look with some confidence to the
protection Of slave property in this Territory,
through the Courts Of the United States."-
opp: Cong. Globe, slok 20, p. 1904.
From thisi viii be seen that the prof is
conclusive that Mr. Bell does not b.lieve that !
he Constitution of the United States, in its
pplication to the Territories. protects the
'wner of the slave in his rights Of property
n all the Territories, but only in those like
oregon, where there has been no ''local sover-
igntyn prior to its acquisition. That in New
Mexico, the case is different. Here it is
doubtful whether property in slaves would
,e entitled to the protection Of the laws and
Constitution Of the United States p here the
ocaz lasos are supreme, and of superior force
o the Constitution.
Away with such squatter sovereignty! Let
Mr.. Bell read the treaties, and he will lind
that, by the terms Of the cession, and the
laws passed at that time, the Government is
bound to protect the citizens of the Territories
in the enjoyment of their right of property,
liberty and religion, until they come into the
Union as State. The compact alone binds
us to protect them, much less the Constitu-