The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1860-08-30
Right of Property i'm Slaves saf-
firEmed.

Right of Property i'm Slaves af-
firmed.
How, and in what manner does the
Court say "the right of property in a
slave is distinctly and expressly affirm
ed? Will the Telegraph answer ?"-
Kenosha Democrat.
The question Of the Democrat will
excite smile by those who have read
the article which appeared in that pa
per'last week, land from which the above
extract is taken. The Democrat ans
wered its own interrogatory, by max
ing the following quotation from the
bred Scott decision, where the Court
say; "The right Of property IN the
s5a0e is distinctly and expressly affirm.
ed in the constitution"
The right of property in slaves, in
all the Territories of the United States,
is expressly affirmed by the Court, and
the right to interfere With such proper
ty en- the part Of the Federal Govern
ment or a Territorial Legislature, ex-
cept to protect it to the owners thereof,
is clearly asserted. The opinion of
the Court is conclusive SO far as that
tribunal can make it, and those who
attempt to eyade its meaning, would
bubble with any we'll known fact of
history. In the bred Scott case, page
1861 the Court say =
Sd. "Eo~,y Citizen has q right to
take qoiM him into the Territory ana
article Of property aohich the ConStitst-
ton Of the United States recognizes as
pr0dery.
4th. 'IHe Constitution Of the United
States recognizes SlaoeS as property,
and pledges the Federal GO0er9lnae3at
to defend 1t. And Congress cannot
exercise any more authority over prop
erty of that description than it may
constitutionally exercise over property
of any other kind"
9th. ''That act of Congress, therefore,
prohibiting a citizen Of the United
States taking with him his slaves when
he removes to the Territory in question
to reside, is an act Of authority oUer
The ori0ate property aohich as not aoar-
rented by tie Constitution, and the re-
moval of the plaintiff by his owner to
that Territory, gave him no title of
freedom"
9th. "While It remains a Territory,
Congress may legislate over it within
the scope of its constitutional powers in
relation to citizens of the United States,
and may establish Territorial govern
ment, and the form of this local gov
eminent must be regulated by the di-
rection Of Congress; but a0tb the p0ao-
ers not e:cceedj3ag those aohjch Congress
itself By the Constitution IS authore@ed
to exercise over Citizens Of the United
States IN respect to their rights Of prop
erty"
When the Court distinctly aver: that,
-''the contribution Of the United States
recognizes slaves as property, and
pledges the Federal government to
protect it," why viii the Douglasites
attempt to evade and equivocate: Does
it not betray their consciousness Of the
absurdities of the DnugIas platform, in
its attempts to endorse both Popular
Sovereignty, and the bred Scott decis-
ion-two doctrines as opposite as the
poles? Mr.. Douglas himself has taken
position from which he cannot vel
retract, he has said;
I, IN common aoitb the Democracy. o.
Illinois, accept the decision Of the het
ipreme Court of the United States, IA til
bred Scott case as an AUTHORITATIVE e1
position of the Constitution.