The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1860-08-30


c'es Of property. has a right to remove to
any Territory and carry his property ritA
him.
Whereupou the editor of the Democra-
tic On,"n accuses us of misreprcsen,ing
the Stump candidate and produced the
paragraph in his speech containing the
above sentiment for the purpose Of con.
victing US. Now we propose to give
that paragraph and we will leave 1t to any
man who has ordinary common sense and
who understands the English language to
say whether It does not contain all tha,
there is in the above extract and more too.
Here is Mr.. Douglas remarks on that
point, IN erienso:
"All the citizens of tho United States.
no matter whether they come from the
North or the South, from free State or
slave State, can enter Territory with
their property on an equal footing. And
apprehend, when you arrive there with
your property, of whatever description,
! it is subject to the local laws of that Ter
ritory. How can your slave property b..
protected without local law any more
than any other kind of property? The
Constitution gives you the right to go
into Territory and carry your slaves
with you the same as any other species
Of property; but it docs not punish any
man for stealing your slaves any more
than stealing any other kind of property
Congress has never yet passed law
providing criminal code or furnishing
protection to any kind OF property. il
has simply organized the Territory and
established Legislature, that Leeisla-
ture being vested with legislative power
over all rightful subjects of Legislation,
subject only to the Constitution of the
United States. Hence whatever jurisdic-
ton the legislature possesses over other
property, 1t has over slave property no
more, no less. Let me ask you, as
southern men, whether you can hold
slaves anywhere unless protected by the
local law? Would not the inaction Of the
local Legislature. its refusal to provide a
slave code. or to punish offences against
that species of property, exclude slavery
just as effectually as Constitutional pro-
hibition? Would it not have that effect
in Louisiana and in every other State?-
No one will deny it.
Now does not Mr.. Douglas say that
slaves go into the territories upon the
same footing with other property. such
as horses, cows, sheep. hogs. &c? OF
course he does. But because he says the
Constitution does not provide for the pun-
ishment of the criminal who steals this or
any other kind ST poperty in the territo-
ries, we are told by these new lights that
lie meant by that, that a man dare not
take slave property into the territory and
hold it there in the absence Of local law
1t is very true, as Mr.. Douglas says, that
should the territorial Legislature refuse
to pass criminal code for the protection
of the rights of its citizens in their pro,
perty, it would not be very desirable
place for a man to go to with any kind Of
property, and it might have the effect to
deter the owners of slaves as well as the
owners OF horses from locating in ter
ritory where the legislature had failed to
provide the usual safe guards against Of
tenders.
In word; you admit, we believe, that
Mr.. Douglas has said that under the
Constitution slaves can be carried into the
territories upon an equa? footing with
other property; now where, in the above
paragraph, do you find single word
that even intimates that there is any To-
cal authority having the power to prohibit
the slave holder from exercising this right
said by Mr.. Douglas TO be guaran-
teed to him by the Constitution of the
United States as construed by the Su-
preme Court in the Dred Scott Decision.
Then if they have no: this power over
the subject Of slavery, what becomes Of
your Squatter Sovereignty humbug?
1t is true, your little magician says,
that slaves as well as all other kinds Of
property must be subject to the local la,us
ofthe territory, and also claims that should
the territorial legislature, BY "unfriend-
ly" inactivity, fail to pass laws for
the protection Of that species Of property,
it might have the effect to prevent slave
ry from existing there ''as effectually as a
Constitutional prohibition"
Now is this all there is left of what
you call your God given principle of pop
ular sovereignty? Is this al you mean
when you say the people Of territory
have right to regulate their domestic
concerns in their own way? If it is, we
are with you. This is the Republican
doctrine exactly. But then your candi
date goes little too far when he says,
"the Constitution gives you the right to
60 into territory and carry your slaves
with you, the same as any other species
of property" And, sirs. if the Consti-
tution gives Won that RIGHT will Won