New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-05-31
SLAVERY In THE TERRITORIES.

SLAVERY In THE TERRITORIES.
The platform on the subject of Slavery in the
Territories laid down in the fourth resolution Of
Mr.. Dayiss series, and sustained by the vote of all
the Democratic Senators except Mr. Pugh-Mr.
Douglas not having been present when the vote
was taken-goes a great deal further than any
declaration of slaveholding doctrine which has
hitherto appeared. This resolution asserts that
"neithcr Congress, nor Territorial Legislature,
possesses the power to annul or impair the Con-
" stitutonal right of any citizen of the United
States to take his Stare property into the common
TERRITORY, and there hold and enjoy the same
while the Territorial condition remains"
In drafting this resolution, the difficulty seems
TO have been recognized of claiming for our South
ern slaveholdDg felow-citizens special and
peculiar privilege of carrying into the Territories
slaves held under the laws of their respective
States. Such claim would seem indeed to be in
direct conflict with that equality Of rights
which has been so often and so emphaticaly APP
pealed to as justifying the pretension set up on
behalf Of slaveholding immigrants. To avoid this
difficulty, the advocated resolution resorts to
general terms. 1t sets up pretended constltu-
tonal right of every citizen of the United States
to take his slave property" into the common
territory The right is claimed not merely for
citizens of Virginia, South Carolina, and the other
Slave States, TO carry into the Territories, and to
hold there during the continuance of the Terri
toria condition. slaves acquired and held under the
laws of those States, but general right "in all
80 citizens" to take into the Territories, and hold
there, beyond the power of any act of Congress,
or of the Territorial Legislature, to impede or
interrupt them, their slave property" without
any specification of the place whence il is brought,
or of the origin of the title TO it.
This declaration, in the terms of it, is quite
broad enough to the transport into the Terri
tories and the holding there, of slaves purchased
in Cuba or acquired on the coast of Africa. If
indeed, according to the doctrine now generally
maintained by the advocates of saye-hOlding
property in men is just as much in accordance
with the law of nature as property in horses or
cattle, what reason can be given why slaves
brought from Cuba or Africa are not just much
entitled to be recognized property in the Terri
tories, and to be held there as such, as slaves
brought from Georgia or Alabama 1t would re-
quire only new application of the same system OF
judicial Interpretation generally applied to
the construction of the acts prohibiting
the African saye-trade to establish the
point that Congress had no constitutional author
ity to cxtond tbooo aoto ~ the Territories. The
clause in the Constitution, it might be alleged,
upon which the slave-tradc prohibition lis based,
speaks only Of States, and has no reference to Ter
ritories So Ingenious a jurist as Judge Ma
grath of the United States District Court for
South Carolina would have no great difficulty in
making out that, even if these acts did apply to
the Territories, the prohibition extended only 10
the Introduction of slaves for sale, and not at all
to the emigration of the owner, taking his slaves
with him. not for the purpose of trade but Of set
tlement.
That the craftsman of this resolution, or that the
Democratic Senators who voted for 1t, intended to
20 so far as to open the Territories to the intro
duction of slaves owned by citizens of the United
States, 10 matter whence brOught-lrom Cuba or
Africa, 70 less than from South Cardinals more
than We are at present prepared to assert. But
the resolution is fairly open TO that construction;
and the forthcoming Baltimore Convention will do
well to ponder little over its phraseology before
concluding to accept it a substitute for the Gin
cnnati platform
For our part, we strcnuousy deny that any
citizen Of the United States, in his mere character
of citizen of the United States, can be possessed
of slave property in defect of which preliminary
oil this pretended right on the part of citizens of
the Unit States of taking such property into the
Territories, and holding it there in spite of Con-
gressonal or TER tOrial Intervention, falls to the
ground. person being citizen Of the United
States may, in his additional character OF resi-
dent Of South Carolina, be possessed of slave
property. So also he may be possessed of slave
property i'll the character of resident in Cuba or
on the African coast. The very fact that slave
holding within their limits is expressly forbidden
by the laws of the larger number of the States suf
iciently proves that no man in the mere character
of citizen Of the United States can be slave