Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1860-02-03


territory, represented in the territorial legis-
lature, to admit slavery by positive enact
ment, if they see fit, bit It being lCeH under
stood that Shareholder has not the least
shad0lc Of right to take his Stare property
into the territory, before such pos'tire leg''-
lation has been had. This definition would
have at least the merit of logical consistency.
But what does Mr.. Douglas say . Slave
~" SO he tells us in his Harper-magazlne
article, - slavery being the creature of local
legislation and not of the constitution OF
the United States, it follows that the con-
stitutiOn does not establish slavery in the
territories, beyond the poloer Of the people
to control II By lQtc. 'What2 The con-
stitution does not establish slavery in the
territories beyond a certain something =
WHAT does that mean If slavery Is the
creature of local law, how can the constitu
ton by its own force permit slavery to 90 in
to a territory at al
Here is a dark mystery, a pitfall, and we
may well take care not to fall into the trap
Of some ophistry. Why does he not speak
Of the admission of slavery by positive enact
ments? Why not even of the power Of the
people 70 erclude it by law ? We look in
vain for light in Harper's mag 7'7e,-(aud
is ID indeed true, what Judge Ilek inti-
mates, that that article is one OF the obscu-
rest documents by which ever = politician
attempted 10 befog his followers ?)-but we
may gather Mr.. Douglas 5 real opinion from
another manifesto preceding this. In his
New Orleans speech, delivered after his re-
cent success in Illinois. he defined his posi-
ton in substance as follows The democ-
racy of Illinois hold that a Shareholder has
. tha sauna r.frhr f. take his slave prDpartv
into "a territory as any other man mas to take
his horse or his merchandise.
What? Slavery is the creature OF local
law. and vet STAKEHOLDER has the right to
take lis slave property into a territory be-
for, any local law has given aiu tnat right
4 save does not come free. when volunta-
rjlr brought by his owner upon the soil OF ter
ritrv. where no positive local law establish
ing slavery exists How is this possible .
How can even the elastic mind Of a demo-
cratic candidate for the presidency unite
these contradictory assumptions Gap
plauseD And vet there it stands. and moth
inr that MIR. D5urlas ever said can be more
unequiyocl in its meaning. And here
4yAiu we may claim the privilege ofdrawing
"a few logical deductions from Mr. Douglass
own premises. If, as M Dcuglas distinct
ly and emuaaticalIv tells us. STAKEHOLDER
fll, "A ri.i.t To ta5e his slave as propertv into
territory aYd 10 hold him there as proper
tv. before any legislation on that point is
Ial. from what source does that right arise ?
Not from the law of nature-for the right
20 hold a slave is .. unfounded in tho law Of
ra-ura and I'm tine unwrltten and common
law and even Mr. Douglas. little as he
may care ab,ut nature and her laws. will
hardly dare ID assert. that the system Of
slave labor is the natural and normal con-
ditiun of society. 1t must then sprIng from
positive law But from what kind OF posi-
Jiy, law Not from any positive law OF
local and municipal character, for there is
none such in the territory SO far. Where Is
It's source then There is but one kind of
positive law to which the territories are sub
iect before any local legislation has been
had, and that IS t5s constitution Of he
U5u'sd States If, therefore, Mr.. Douglas
asserts, as lac does. that a slaveholder has
the right to take bis slave as property into
territory. he must at the same time admit
that in the absence OF local legislation posi-
lively establishing slavery, the constitution
OF the United States, the only valid law ex-
i~tiug there. must be the source OF that
right.
that slavery exists IN the territories by ylr-
tue of the federal constitution Where IS
then, the point of diff renee between Mr..
Buchanan and Mr., Douglas Why all tins
pomp and circumstance Of glorious war >
Whence these fierce battles between the Mon
techi and Cauuletti Of the Democratic camp?
Are ye not brothers
But Mr. Douglas is a statesman, $50 they
,v All all statesmen \ and prltpudS that the
constitution does not establish slavery IN the
territories. "bey0ad The Po'Cer Of the Peo-
pie 10 control II by i1jC. " hat does that
mean 1t means that the people of ter
rit0ry shall have the power, not 70 exclude
slavery by law, for Mr. Douglas never uses
that expression. but TO embarrass the slave
holder IN the enjoyment OF his right by - un-
friendly legislation" The right to hold
slaves. says he, in another place, " Is
worthless right, unless protected by appro-
pirate police regulations. If the people OF
the territory do not want slavery, they have
friendly gisation" Indeed, a most in
genious expedieut.
But alas Here is one Of those cases,
where the abstract admission of right Is
of decisive Importance Suppose for argu-
Hislit Nihts a CltiNO ~ CoNdpS AA'Ah ms
owner in a territory, without being in actual
danger Of re-capture ; would that in any
way affect the constitutional right of the
Shareholder 10 the possession and enjoyment
of his property? ? | have already quoted Mr..
Douglas own answer to this question:
" If, " says he, g slavery exists in the terrific
ries by virtue Of the constitution" (that
is, if a stakeholder has right to introduce
his - slave property where there is no
other law but the conStitution,) - then it
becomes the imperative duty Of Congress,
to the performance of which every mem
Der is bound by his oath and conscience,
and from which no consideration of policy
or expediency can release him, to provide
by law such adequate and complete protec
ton, as is essential to the enjoyment of
that important right"
And Mr. Douglas, after having emphati
eally admitted the right of property in a
slave, where that right can spring from no