The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1860-02-08
TERRIroRIAL LEGIsL LATURE.
rs POrOer Subject to The Constitution.

OHAMBEk, I
lli ueql OMAHA, January 9, 1860.
70 he Honorable Die Council of Nebraska Terri
ioyy.- ,as t-H- #.
herewith return to you "An act to prohibit
slavery" unsigned and with my objections.
This act necessarily involves the whole ques-
ton OF power or jurisdiction over the subject
matter. If slavery exists here in law or in
fact to prohibit is to abolish it. If it does not
exist, where is the need of legislation? But
do not stop to measure the relative value OF
mere words, which may be used indiferently
and for the same object.
This BILL | suppose, is intended to interdict
slavery or involuntary servitude, within the
Territory; and suppose is likewise intended
to raise the question whether the Territorial
Legislature can do it. At all events it does So
For the purpose of considering the question
with distinctness, will first examine it, as it
may or may not be affected by the treaty with
France. This Territory was part Of Louisiana,
and all agree that when we acquired Louisiana
in 1903, it was slave territory, and slaves were
property The third article of the treaty by
which Louisiana became acquirad to the Uni
ted States, is important at this point. 1t is
part Of the treaty compact that 'the inhabi-
tants of the ceded territory shall be incorpora-
ted in the United States, and admitted as soon
as possible, according to the provisions of the
Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all
the rights, privileges and immunties ofcitzens
Of the United States and in the meantime they
shall be protected in the free enjoyment of their
liberty property, and the religion which they
profess"
As had occasion to remark in another com
munication addres 'ed to you, Nebraska, as a
part Of the Louisiana purchase, was acquired TO
Aoo1 tofo tbar Epp
this purpose, and this alone, is there any pow
er under the Constitution to acquire foreign ter
ritory. do not enlarge upon this point, hav-
ing already discussed 1t at length.
It is stipulation in the treaty 'that the in
habitants Of the ceded territory shall be moor
porated in the Union Of the United States,'
and it is every whit as strong a stipulation that
I'm the meantime" they shall be protected in
1.-The free enjoyment Of their liberty, property,
and the religion which they profess" The
faith Of the country is pledged to it, and it is
just as good to the inhabitants of Nebraska Ter
ritory to-day, or any day, as it was to the first
inhabitants, in 1908. Mr.. John Quincy Adams
understood this perfectly, and disposed of the
question very briefly and conclusivey, when
Arkansas was before Congress for admission, in
1886. "She is entitled to admission as Slave
State, as Louisiana and Missouri have been ad
mitted." by virtue of "that article in the treaty
for the purchase of Louisiana, which secures to
th3 people Of the ceded territory all the rights,
privileges and immunities of the original citi-
zens of the United States, and stipuates for
their admission, conormably to that principle,
into the Union. Arkansas, therei fore
comes, and has a right to come, with her slaves
and herslave laws. 1t is written in the bond
and however | may lament that it was ever
written, ! must faithfully perform its oblga
tions." Now, what was written in the bondP
Was it not that the people of the ceded terri
tories are to be secure in their rights of proper
ty, person and religion, as well as that they
should be admitted into the Union on an equal
footing with the original States?
In the Dred Scott case, Mr.. Justice Catron
says: Louisiana was province when slavery
was not only lawful but when property in slaves
was the most valuable of all personal property
The province was eeded as unit, with an equal
right pertaining to all its inhabitants, in every
part thereof to own slaves. To
enable the United States to fulfil the treaty,
additional population was indispensable and OBJ
viously desired, with anxiety, on both sides, SO
that the whole country should, as soon as pos
sible becomes States Of the Union. As for
this contemplated future population the treaty
tants residing in the province. All these were
to be protected in the meantime" that is to
say at all times "between the date of the trea
ty and the time when the portion of the terri
tory where the inhabitants resided was admit
ted into the Union as State" "At the date
of the treaty." he further remarks, each inhab
itant had right to the free enjoyment of his
property, alike with his liberty and his religion
in any part of Louisiana.
To surmount the treaty difficulty, was con-
sidered worth labored effort by Mr. Justice
Curtis, in the Dred Scott case. 1t occupies four
full pages Of his able dissenting opinion. His
effort was to show that Congress might prohibit
slavery in the Territory of which Nebraska is a
part On the strength of Elom and Nelson,
Peters 3l4, and Garcia W. Lee, IL Peters $40,
he argues that the stipulation in the treaty 4d-
dresses itself to the political or legislative pow
er, and is not law for the government of the
Court. 1t enough to say that these cases are
cases of disputed boundaries between nations;
and, of course, for the political department oi
the government, and not for the judicial
tThe judicial is not that department of the
government to which the assertion of its inter
ests against foreign power is confided" But
under the third article, individual rights of per-
son, property and religion are guaranteed, and
may not be swept away by legislation.
ssI II is also said that "the stipulation was tenn
porary, and ceased to have any effect when the
then inhabitants of the Territory of Louisiana
in whose behalf the stipulation was made, were
incorporated into the Union" In other words
chat the State of Louisiana, on her admission
into the Union, swallowed up all the rights
guaranteed by the treaty to the rest of the Ter
ritory, including, of course, Arkansas Missou-
ri Iowa and Minnesota, while in territorial
condition and Nebraska too This startling
declaration is made on the strength of Chic
Justice Marshall's opinion, in 8 Peters 223 to
which Mr. Justice Curtis refers, as follows
s'In the case of New Orleans VS.. De Armas Ell
al, e Peters, 223) the question was whether o
title to property which existed at the date o.
the treaty, continued to be protected by the
treaty after the State of Louisiana was admit
ted into the Union. The third article of the
treaty was relied on. Mr.. Chief Justice Mar
shall said: "This article obviously contemplates
two objects; one that Louisiana shall be ad-
mitted into the Union as soon as possible, on
an equal footing with the other States; and the
other, that till such admission the inhabitants
Of the ceded territory shall be protected in the
free enjoyment oil their liberty, property and re-
ligion. Had any one Of these rights been vio-
lated while these stipulations continued in force
the individual supposing himself to be injured
might have brought his case into this Court, un.
der the 25th section Of the Judicial act But
this stipulation ceased to operate when Louisi-
ana became member OF the Union, and its in
habitants were admitted to the endowment O
alI the rights, advantages and immunities o
the citizens Of the United States.,
w md vet. what does this opinion all anotint