The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1860-02-14

!vT dli II uc sidlt>!l aii-L-P 10 IcullUtC UflBl
positive ideas.
IL order to ind out Mr.. Douglass owl
definition Of his own great principle, W,
are obliged 10 pick up the most lucid o
his statements as We fnd them scattered
about in numerous speeches and maniles
toes. After multfarious cruising upon th,
sea Of platforms and arguments, Mr.. Doug
las has at last lar dei a; the following point
&" \ slave" says be, III his famous Harper
Magazine article, "a slave, within the mean
Ing Of the Constitution, is person held Il
service or labor in one State, 'under III,
lars thereof hot under the Cons itutior
OF the United States or under the law:
thereof, nor by virtue of any Federal auth
particular State achere such S,rrice o.
Labor may Le due" This is clear aud
with his eyes firmly fixed upon the people
of the North, he goes on :" Ii, as Mr.. Blu,
chalaa asserts, slavery exists in the Ter
ritories by virtue of the Constitution Of the
United States, then 1t becomes the impera
tive duty Of Congress, 10 the performance
If 1rhtch ererY menlber as tOund by htt
co,.S 4e,,'e asttJ has oath, and from aChtH
no COnStde/atlon Of pOLscy or erpe,Ctea
ey can refeaSe htm, to provide by law
such adequate and complete protection a.
is essential to the enjoyment of an iInpor
tant right secured 10y the Constitution
in one word, to enact general slave code
for the Territories But Mr.. Douglas j:
not satisfied with this In order to strength
en- his assumption, and to annlbiate Mr.. Bu
chanan's construction of the Nebraska bill
still more, be proceeds The Constitu
tlon being uniform everywhere within the
dom;nions of the United States, being tbs
supreme law OF the land, anything III the
Constitutions or laws of any States to the
contrary Notwithstanding, why does not sla
very exist in PeuEsy lyania, just as well as ii
Kansas or i'll South Carolina, by virtue OF
the same Constitution, since Pennss lvania
is subordinate to the Constitution in the
same manner aud to the same extent a.
South Carolina and Kansas ,"
Just 80. Mr.. Douglas having been s.
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 a slave
is held under the laws Of State, and not
under the constitution or the laws of the
United States. Slarery ertstS Outy by uir-
tue Of local tar, or. As the Court OF Ap.
peals of ken,ucky expressed it. the right
to hold slave exists onl y by positiUc Aaa,
0f q muntcipat character, and has nl
foundation in the law Of nature, or the un
written and common law, We arc forced IL
to tie conclusion that slave, brought by
his owner upon the soil Of a Territory he
fore the Territorial Legislature have en-.
acted laws establishing slavery, becomes OF
necessity free, for there is no local law OF
a municipal character under which he
might be held as slave This principal
is recognised by the decisions of several
Southern courts. Having gone 50 far
(ald, indeed, | cannot see how logca
mind can es ape these conclusions from
Mr.. Doug lass own premises,) Mr. Doug
las would be obliged to define his popular
sovereignty to be the right OF the people OF
a Terr tory. represented IN tue Ierrltorla
Legislature, to admit slavery by positiv,
enactment, if they see fit, 6W ii being acet'
undeyst0Od that q shareholder has no
tie least Shaiotc Of q right Ia take ht'
stare property into the Ierr,tory bJor'
such posture Legislation has 6eca had
This definition would have at least the merit
of Logical consistency.
But what does Mr.. Douglas say ," Slave
ry." SO he tells US in his Harper-Magazln'
article, slavery being the creature OF loca
legislation, aud not of the Constitution o
the United States, 1t follows that the Con
stitution does not establish slavery in th'
Territories beyond The potcer Of The pea
pie to contr0l IL by iaaC." What Th'
Constitution does not establish slavery II
the Territories beyond certain something
What does that mean, If slavery /. th'
creature of local law, how can the Cons'i
tuition, by its own force, permit slavery t
90 Into Territory at atL'
Here is a dark mystery--a pit fall an
We may well take care not to fall into tn
trap of some sophistry Why does he no
speak of the admission of slavery By pos
tive enactments Why not even of tn
power of the people TO erctucle 1t by law
We look in vain for light in HaIper's Maga
zine, land is it indeed true, what judy
Black intimates, that that article is one c
the obscurest documents by which ever
politician attempted to tefOg his ollowers
but We may gather Mr.. Douglass real opin
ion from another manifesto preceding this
In his New Orleans speech, delivered al
ter biz recent success in Illinois, he define
his position, in ubstauce, as follows: " Tn
Democracy of Illinois hold that slav
holder has the same right to take his slav
property into a Territory as any other ma
has TO take h's horse or his merchandise
+ What? Slavery is the creature of lcca
law, aud yet STAKEHOLDER has the right t
take his slave property into Territory be
fore any local law has given him that right
\ slave does not become free, when voluu
,arily brought by his owner upon the soil c
Territory where no positive local law e:
tabilshlug slavery exists. How Is this po:
s,ble How can even the elastic mind {
Democratic candidate for the Presidenc
unite these contradictory assumptions =
Applause And yet there it stands an
nothing that Mr. Douglas ever said can b
more unequivocal in its meauiug. An
here again Wa may claim the privilege {