The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1860-04-04
AND ASH D

ion into another; country, where there was no
law opposed to the existence of slavery. The
law of nations recognizes the relation; and
any interference with the rights of the master,
without valid cause, by the authorities of an
other State, is violation of that law (See
Judge Campbells opinion in the case of Dred
Scott Us. SanIord.) Unless there is positive
prohibitory law in a foreign State, 1 can take
my slave there and have him protected. Mr..
Webster, in his correspondence in the Creole
case, contended that property in slaves did not
cease extra territorialy, and our government,
in several instances, has maintained the same
doctrine. I .s
lit Ias been frequently stated IN Congress
| that slavery was not introduced into single
British colony by authority Of law, and that
there IS not statute in any slaveholdlng State
| legalizing African slavery, or Consulting the
original basis and foundation of title to slave
property" Mr.. Benjamin, in very masterly
speech. in the Senate, showing that slavery
was protected by the common law of the world,
pressed the argument that every one of the
States would be slave State yet and now but
for the passage of laws prohibiting slavery
I therein. "All had to pass positive acts of
Legislation to accomplish the purpose of getting
rid of slavery" This principle has been re-
peatedly questioned by abolitionists and repub-
licans On the 21st of March, 1912, Mr.
Giddings introduced his famous resolutions on
the Creole case, one of which asserts that
Slavery, being abrid ment of the natul al
rights of man. exist only by force of positiue
ncpdl law. and is necessarily confined the terri
torial jurisdiction the power creating it,
A noted abolition senator Mr.. Sumner)
makes as the text of one of his inhamatory
harangues "Freedom national, and slavery
sectional" The late Republican convention
in Indiana incorporated into its platform q
similar opinion. Recently this doctrine has
found Endorsement in different quarters. A
resolution Of the last Democratic convention
of Illinois-so much of which as related to
this subject was read aid approved in this
House byan extreme Republican member from
that State (Nlr. Farnsworth declares that
slavery, if it exists in Territory, does not de-
rive its validity from the Constitution of the
United States, but is mere municipal insti-
tuition, existing in such Territory under the
laws thereof. The same is said to be true OF
slavery in State. As such doctrine, so far
ously adopted in Democratic convention,
may class it as the second progeny from the
parental stock of squatter sovereignty II
this be established the law, and applied in
practice, it will require act of the territorial
legislature to legalize slavery, and a slavehold-
er will have no right to enter the Territory
with his property until after such enactment
If slavery can only exist in Territory, as the
resolution asserts, by virtue ofthe laws thereof
if it has no validity except by virtue of a 10
cal law, then a slave cannot be. held as proper
| ty in Territory where there is no local law
! authorizing it.zzAccording to this doctrine
there must be previous affirmative legislation
establishing the right of property in slaves, ol
| an owner OF slaves cannot carry them into the
Territory; and thus the South is practically
and forever excluded. It is unnecessary t
talk about congressional prohibition, and the
power of territorial legislature to exclude
slavery; if the Illinois theory be adopted, /:
slave can not get into Territory to be held a!
property.
y-e CONCLUDED NEXT WEEK. ~