The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1860-07-13
OVER THE MIND OR BODY OF MAN."-JErrERsos.
BLOCK, LIBERTY STREET.
MORNING, JULY ls, 1860.

ty In men within that State, cannot stand o
moment against the Constitution of the Uni
ted States, which says there may be; and the
theory OF the practical exclusion OF slavery
by unfriendly legislation is fallacious and
wholly inadmisible-it Is as unsound rs II
Is dishonest. II the chattelship Of q slave Is
recognised and secured by the Constitution
of the United States, II Is something more
then merely nominal recognition, for O 30
curity which Is merely nominal is no securi-
ty at all. The constitutional guaranty or
protection Is of no account, II the States, or
Territories, or Congress may ut tbojr pleas.
ure render that which is the subject OF pro-
lection valuelcss, or not worth possessing
But n Il should be conceded, as / will not
deny Il may be, that tho State Legislatures
and the legislative authorities for the Ter
| ritories, whether Federal or local, may pass
laws regulating the possession, use, sale, and
enjoyment OF property In gcneral-if they
may, by taxation or otherwise, render the
holding of any particular kind Of property
improbable and burdensome, IL docs not fol-
low that they have such power over slave
property, and they have not IL the Dred
Scott decision be good law, and for this OBJ
yious reason-that of all things on earth, 0f
all articles Of oil names, and descriptions of
chattcls, goods, wares, and possessions, with
the-exception Of slayes,) not one is made
property by the Federal Constitution, not
one is recognized in name or by implication
as property. The Constitution recognises
undoubtedly the idea Of property, but the
specific articles or things which shall be held
and regarded as such. II does not name or in
dicato, with the single exception (if the doc
trine Of the judges ofthe Supreme Court and
the Democratic party be sound) Of negro
slaves. II does not make horses property, or
recognize them as property, and so 1t Is en-
tircly competent for any State or Territory,
by its law-making power, to declare that
there shall be within its jurisdiction no such
thing as property In horse whatever is
property by statute, may be deprived of that
character by statute; and whatever by the
common law, or by the understanding and
consent of mankind, is regarded as property,
may cease to be such in any country, it the
law-mking power thereof shall 30 determine.
OF the truth of this proposition there can be
no doubt; II is acted upon every year in the
States and In oil sovereigniies. The States
arc sovereign except in 80 far as their power
is limited by the Constitution of the United
States. II Is not claimed that the power OF
the States to declare what shall or shall not
bo treated as property within their own linn
its has been taken from them, always except
ing the one case of slaves. One State has
provided by legislation that there shall bc no
property in cart-wheels Of less than a GER
tain width another, that there shall be no
such thing as property within Its jurisdiction
in game cocks; ansther, that an inferior
and vicious species Of cattle, which were be-
ing brought into 1t from neighboring coun-
try shall not bc introduced, held, or kept as
property, within its limits; another, that
there shall be NO protection, TO-. and no prop
--erty in domestic liquors and when the ques-
|. law was raised and presented to the Supreme
Court of the United States, that tribunal de-
cided in favor of the power. Thus, in oil
cases and in reference to all kinds Of proper
ty, except slave property, the States and
Territories have unlimited power; and IL
they may deny the fact Of property in any
particular article or thing they mayo course
regulate its use and enjoyment.
The truth is, this question Of property be-
.longs exclusively to the local sovoreignties,
and the Constitution Of the United States
does not in any manner recognize slaves as
property. In this country where the Feder
al Constitution is silent upon the subject of
what is or is not property, the. only limita.
ton upon State authority is what possibly
may result from the operation of constitu-
tional law of Congress; Us, in tho case OF o
revenue law, the effect may bo to recognize
property in any article OF merchandise i'm
ported into the country upon which imposts
are levied and paid, which article, thus rec
ognized as property by a law paramount to
any State authority, must be respected and
treated as such within the States and IL
this be true, 1t illustrates the position, that
whatever is property under recognition su.
perior to State authority enjoys special
protection. Ifimported liquors are entitled
to such protection by operation ot consti-
tutional law of Congress, fortiori is slave
property, by virtue Of the Constitution it.
self.
The power of the Territories over property
is derived from their organic act. and is gem
orally, IL not always, with the exception of
slavery prohibitions,) unrestricted by such
acts, so that the authority Of Territorial Leg
islatures in respect to property is similar to
that Of State Legislatures and tire celebra-
ted axiom OF Mr.. Clay, that "that Is proper
ty which the law makes property is true
in the States and Territories alike; that is,
true in respect to all things which ore the
rightful subjects Of propcrty-which are sus-
ceptable of being made property by any hui
man law. Hence 1t comes that each State
and Territory decides for itself what shall be
known and respected as property within its
jurisdiction. Whatever the law ,Oi Massa- |
chusetts makes property Is property in that
State. and whatever the law OF Nebraska
makes property is property in Ncbraska
and nothing is or can be property in either,
In violation of the local law. and nothing can
be property in any State or Territory because
Il is property anywhere or everywhere else.
The law of Maine must govern in that State,
and not tho law of North Carolina the law
Of Nebraska must govern In Nebraska, and
not the law of Alabama. There Is no hard
ship or inequality In all this; the same law
applies to all, residents and non-residents.-l
The citizen of New York who removes to Ne
braska with his property, does not hold i in
Nebraska because It was property IN New
York, but simply because he finds 1t to be
property in Nebraska by her own law. His
title there does not necessarily rest upon the
fact that It is property by the general consent
Of the civilized world, for, Notwithstanding
that general recognition, II may los, its char
acter Of property in Nebraska by the force
of her local legislation.
But the States and Territories can pass no
unequal laws, and deprive one description OF
persons or citizens ofrights enjoyed by 9TH
ers they cannot enact that horse may be
property In the hands Of one man, and not
in those of another thcymay impose no un-
equal taxes, or make unjust determinations
between residents and non-residents, natives |
and foreigners, citizens OF one State and cit |
ircns of another State-in this sense, one
cannot be deprived Of his property without
due proccs. Of law-but whenever I. in the