The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1860-05-23
what the sonth Demands.

Many are disposed to magnifyt the claims putt
forth by a portion of the South, and by sncht
Terms, as q slave code for the territories, make
it appear that some terrible innovation isl
threatened. 1t appears to us that the demand
of protection to the enjoyment of slave prop
erty In the Territories lisa strictly logical Sc
quence of the doctrines put forth BY all par
ties, except the radical abolitionists. oThat is
property said Henry Clay (which the Law
makes property" thus forcibly combating the
abolition dogma that there could be no legal
property IN slaves. The Wings conceded in
this view, and often quoted it, against their
abolition opponents, The Democrats have al
ways denied the right of Congress to abolish
slavery in the District of Columbia, and lat
terly in the Territories also. The denial of
this right in Congress was held to apply with
still greater force to Territorial Legislatures,
until the invention of the "Squatter Sovereign
ty" dodge. In advocating the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise, a prominent argument
was Its nnconstitutionality, because it made a
distinction between the property rights of citi-
zens Of different States. Since, then, the ma
ture of slave PROPERTY has stood so long and
so universally confessed to differ no wise in le-
gal rights, from other property, is it not strict
ly logical that its owners should ask the same
degree of respect and protection? We say
lRadica 8litionism may consistently
deny this protection but other parties can not.
Let us now present the dispute in a small
and easily apprehended compass. A.
goes from a slave State with a negro, and B
from a free State, with a horse. In the COM
munities from which they respectively came,
property was held so sacred, that a fundamen-
tai maxim of constitutional law was, "that pri-
yate property should not be taken for public
use, without a just compensation" a. says
"All I ask is, that the same principle shall
prevail here also" B. says: "No sir. 1t shall
prevail with respect to my horse; but your ne
gro is a different article. While at home /
would not have troubled him. Had he run
into my State [ would have returned him. ]
admitted your right to him, under the law Of
your State as fully as you did my right to my
horse, under the laws of mine. But here.
your right ceases mime continues. Should
your nego come to me I shall not restore him
or recognise your claim. Should my horse es
cape to you, I shall reclaim him as my prop
erty. When Congress extends it's protection
over us, L shall expect its courts to recognise
my rights of property just as they were whe1
I left its actual jurisdiction; but shall deny it
right to defend any claim you may think yol
have upon that negro.
It is needless to continue the colloquy, O.
to add that A. and B. represent, in practice
the principles which actuated the divided
Charleston Convention. 1t is quite as needles
to say that the southern section is logical,
correct, and consistent with all the antecedent
Of the party. And not only so, but consist
ent with the practice of the world in respec
to slavery; no civilized nation having, to GU
,, knowledge, abolished it without compensation
!, to those who relinquished their rights in it
There has been no slave code for the Terrific
. ries,' heretofore, because no need for it ha
. been felt; just as, for the same reason, Their
has been no anti-poligamy code. Squatte
e that it is not q discriminating principle, but
! mere shift of expediency.- Ypsaamti Sentim'