The Potter journal. [volume] (Coudersport, Pa.) 1857-1872, 1860-02-23

his eyes firmly fixed upon the people of
the North, he goes GU: II, as Mr.. Bu-
chapan asserts, slavery exists in the Ter
ritories by virtue Of the Constitution of
the United States, then it becomes thet
imperative duty Of Congress, to the prr,i
tormqace OF phich erery mcnlber IS bound
fby his coAscfences dadht oath, aud from,
F-,ehich no consideration Of poytry or er-
i,ps5ieaey ca q release him, to provide by
law such adequate. and complete protec-
ton as is essential to the enjoyment ofau
important right secured by the Constitu-
tion--in one word, to enact 4 general
slave code for the Territories. But Mr.
| Douglas is not satisfied with this In
order to strengthen his assumption, and
to annihilate Mr. Buchanan sconstruction
of the Nebraika bill still more, he pro-
cceds: "The Constitution being uniform
everywhere within the dominions of the
United States, being the supreme law of
/ the land, anything in the Constitution or
flaws Of any of the States to the contrary
notwithstanding, why does net slavery
exist IN Pennsylvania, just as well as in
Kansas or in South Carolina, By virtue
of the same Constitution, since Pennsyl-
vania is subordinate to the Constitution
/ III the same manner and to the same ex-
tent as South Carolina and Kansas
! just so. Mr. Douglas having been so
positive, he cannot deny US the privilege
Of making few logical deductions from
his own premises. We expect him to
proceed in the following manner "Since
slave is held under the laws of State,
and not under the CONSTITUTION or th3
laws of the United States, siaUery EXISTS
only by virtue Of local 2aoo," or, as the
Court Of Appeals of Kentucky expressed
it, g the right to hold a slave exists only
by positire tar OF u municipal character,
and has no foundation in the law Of ma
ture, or the unwritten and common law.
If slavery cannot exist except by virtue Of
local law of a municipal character, 1t fol-
lows, as an irresistible consequence, that
STAKEHOLDER cannot hold slave as prop
erty in Territory where there is no local
law of municipal character establishing
that right of property. And, fur her,
the right to hold slave having no 70 IN
dation in the law of nature, or the un-
written and common law, we are forced
to the conclusion that a slave, brought by
his owner upon the soil of a Territory
before the Territorial Legislature have
enacted laws establishing slavery, be-
comes of necessity free, for there is no
local law of municipal character under
which he might be held as a slave. This
principal is recognized by the decisions
of several Southern courts. Having goue
so far, (and, indeed, cannot see how
logical mind can escape these conclusions
from Mr. Douglass own premises,) Mr..
Douglas would be obliged to defue his
popular sovereignty to be the right oftho
people of Territory, represented IN the
Territorial Legislature, to admit slavery
by positive enactment, if they see fit,
! but ii being accU understood that a stare
! holder has not the least sh0dolo Of a
rtyhtt to take his slape property into the
Territory Lefore such pssitive legislation
has been had. This definition would
have at least the merit of logical consis-
tency."
"But what does Mr. Douglas say p
"Slavery," so he tells us in his Harper
Magazine article, ''slavery being the crea-
ture of local legislation, and not Of the
Constitution of the United States, it fol
lows that the Constitution does not es-
tablish slavery in the Territories beyond
the power of the people to control 1t by
law" What? The Constitution does
not establish slavery in the Territories
beyond certain something! What does
that mean? If slavery s~the creature Of
local law, how can the Constitution, BY
its own force, permit slavery to 60 into a
Territory at att 4?
Here is dark mystery-a ptt-fall ;
and we may well take care not to fall in
to the trap OF some sophistry. Why does
he not speak of the admission of slavery
by positive enactments? Why not even
of the power of the people to exclude il
? by law? We look in vain for light in
Harper's Magazine, (and is it indeed true
E what Judge Black intinates, that that ar
: ticle is one of the obscurest documents
e by which ever a politician attempted t
a befog his followers y but we may gather
P Mr.. Douglass real opinion from anotheI
manifesto preceding this. Ia his New
0 Orleans speech, delivered after his recent
success in Illinois, he defined his position
i in substance, as follows: 1.-The Democra
: cy of Illinois hold that STAKEHOLDER has
/ the same right to take his slave property
: into Territory as any other man has
: to take his horse or his merchandise"
t What? Slavery is the creature of To-
, cal law, and yet a Shareholder has the
, right to take his slave property into {
: Territory before any local law has giver