Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-09-06

OO4G4
The question Of the protection Of property in the
Territories has obtained much importance in the
present canvass The accusation against the friends
Of Mr. BREcKsRDGE is that they for intervention
to establish slavery in the common Territories be-
longing equally to all the States. This charge is ut
terly without foundation in every aspect Of the
case.
ssGoyernment was made for man and not man for
government" is one Of the truisms of the Democra-
cy of tine country. The strong arm that has ever
been raised against the Capitalization of power in
the Federal Government has ever been raised by
national Democrats. Every unwarrantable assump-
ton of power every latitudinarian construction Of
the great Magma Charta came from the opponents of
that party. We have ever insisted upon a strict
construction of the powers granted in the compact
treaty, CT constitution, made and entered into by
the original independent sovereign cOmitieS or dis
tiad sovereign NATIONS, which made the same. Why
was this government made but for the mutual wei
fare and common protection of life, liberty and the
enjoyment of civil, political and social rights, and
among these is the enjoyment of property and pro-
lection in that enjoyment. For these purposes was
cur government instituted and the powers necessa-
ry to this end were given up, coded, granted to a
federal head having legislative, judicial and execu
tive powers.
This federal authority, this central power, was
created and instituted to secure life, liberty,
end the pursuit of happiness" Necessary to these
rights is the enjoyment of property. If Govern
ment was not made for this purpose, what was it
made for? Let those who oppose answer. But
how far can this protection extend? We answer :
N - foagc
and ouer al subjects and matters embraced '0itt' that
jurisdiction.
We dare say no one will call in question this an
swer If it be correct, then our opponents are
bound to acknowledge the correctness of the posi-
ton assumed by the Democratic party in their plat
form adopted at Baltimore when they say:
Thst it is the duty of the Federal Government. in
all its departments, to protect, when necessary the
rights of persons and property in the territories
and wherever else its constitutional authority ex-
tends.
The only question that remains for our consldera-
ton IS has the federal authority jurisdiction over
the Territories belonging to,the United States' Or
does its constitutional authority extend oVe2 the
rights of persons and property in the Territories?
We answer, yes. The Territories were made
subject of legislation by the original compact 1t
Congress possesses the power TO build a military
road through the Territories. it also possesses the
power to protect that road from all injury, and to
punish the offenders. If Congress can establish
post routes and post offices in Territory, it also
possesses the power to pass laws for the protection
of the same If the fugitive slave law is valid in
the Territories and Congress has made it valid and
operative and the Supreme Court has SO adjudi
Gated the question we ask how far removed is the
question of protection of persons and property
enumerated in the Democratic platform, from the
same principle that Congress acted upon in making
the fugitive slave law of full force and effect in the
Territories? If Congress pass laws for the pu-
nishment of murder, piracy and treason committed
in the Territories or upon the high seas, does not
its jurisdiction extend that far, and is this not egis
aton for the protection of property and of persons?
To this end Congress legslate for the protection
of the master in the enjoyment of his property in
his slave.
A few wears since United States merchant YES
sci, with several slaves on board, was driven by
stress of weather into one of the British West In
dian possessions The British authorities there took
possession of the slaves. Our Government demand
ed full remuneration to the of those slaves
from the British Government; and The British GOU-
erznent paid a-pald for the property they had taken
from our citizens, and that property was in slaves.
This illustrates the principle. In this case the
master was upon the high seas. He held his slaves
as property by virtue of the principles of common
law, and while our Government had no right or
authority itself to take away that property of the
citizen of State, it bound to protect the mas
ter in his interest and right TO the property So in
the Territories. The Democratic party claim the
same protection to the master in his interest in
slaves in the Territories.
The General Government sends its governor, its
marshas its judges, into the Territories. For what?
Simply to protect persons and property The const-
tuition recognizes slaves as property and the owner
of slaves is entitled to protection in the enjoyment
of his interest, as much the owner of ahOrse.
The same principle applies to all kinds of property
and the Government is bound to protect the citizen
in holding his property from the violence of robbers
or fanatics. This is all the Democratic party ask
it is all they contend for