Nebraska advertiser. [volume] (Brownville, Nemaha County, N.T. [Neb.]) 1856-1882, 1860-01-26

4 Law; not from the decisions ct courts ;
but from the God of Nature, who has
conferred upon them an inherent right to
4 frame laws for their own government,
happiness and protection.
a., An elaborate attemptis made in the
message under consideration, to dispel the
absurdity of converting the Constitution
the United States into a packhorse, to be
used for the purpose Of Introducing slave
| ~ into the Territories but lhe ingenious
sophistry used has only succeeded an
changing it from a packhorse 10 a sort of
underground railroad, by means of which
in-some Guhdeinable manner Slavery. is
l,inlroduoed intos the Territories, but by
which they can never escape. sao3 lo y +
Mr. President, this position needs but
a passing notice. The provisions Of the
Constitution are as obligatory upon the
citizens of a state as upon those of a ter
ritory, and if the Constitution carries ard
protects slavery in a Territory, l would
inquire how can the people diyest them
selves of their obligations to the CoEsti-
tuition Of the United States by the forma-
lion Of State Government?
1t would seem that if they can thus
throw off their obligations to the Consti-
tuition relative to the subject of slavery,
they may do so relative to any other sub
lect, and the anomaly might be introduc-
ed of a State in the Union which owed
only partial allegiance to the Constitution.
The fair and legitimate conclusion seems
be that the Constitution does not carry
,Iavery into the Territories, nor yet pro-
teot itwhen it is there, except by the
provisions of the Fugitive Slave act,
which applies alike TO States and Terri
tories; but that like all other poroperty
It is subject to the local law of the Ter,
-ity. - as4A. ~ -.
acknowledgement which I wish to no.
ice is that slavery is held and protected
here by the treaty for the purchase of
Louisiana. That treaty embraced the
States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri,
iowa and Minnesota, and the Territories
Of Kansas, Nebraska, and Dakota.
At the time of the purchase, the pop
ulation was confined to few points on
the Mississippi river between st. Louis
and New Orleans. The stipulation in
The treaty was that the inhabitants should
be protected in their "libertY, property.
and religion" hEA aa
Th2:. stipulation has long since been
fulfilled to the letter, by the admission of
the States. of Louisiana, Arkansas. and
Missouri, which embraced the whole of
the original populations
If the treaty protects slavery in Ne
braska, it protects ii as well in Iowa and
Minnesota-as well in State as in a
Territory, for how can State annul a
treaty by The United States?
If it is an infraction Of the treaty to
exclude slavery from Nebraska, now, it
will be equally an infraction to exclude
it when we form State Government, be-
;ause slaves are property as well in a
State as in a Territory.
Hence it follows, thatif slavery is pro-
tected here by the treaty now, it will not
cease to protect it during our transition
from Territorial to a State government,
and consequently is fastened upon US for
ever. Bat snpposing it to have been the
original 'intento of the atreaty { (which
4 do not admit) that slavery should be
protected throughout the Territory ceded,
that intent was set aside and repealed by
the Act of 1920, known as the Missouri
Compromise Act. tits true that the Act
of 1920 was repealed by the passage of
the Kansas-Nebraska. Act in 1854; but
with the express provision contained in
the last clause of the 18th Section of the
Act THAT nothing herein contained shall
be construed to revive or put IN force any
law or regulation which may have existed
prior to the Act Of the 9th March, 1920,
either protecting, establishing prohibit
ing, or abolishing slavery" The opera
tion of that proyiso waste leave the Ter
ritories of Kansas and Nebraska per-
feet carte blanche, upon which the peo-
pie might write their laws for the regula-
tion of ''their domestic institutions in their
own way" aLl 7l lI
1t is a fact generally lost sight of, by
those who contend that the treaty for the
purchase of Louisiana protects slavery In
Nebraska, that the same Act which re.
pealed the Missouri Compromise Act Of
1920, just as effectually repealed the
lstipulations of the treaty upon the same
subject, if indeed theYlwer ever appli-
cable In this Territory. s.... -.f.-.,-
Ii is argued that. the Territories are
the common property Of the States Of the
Whole Union, and that, Therefore, we have
no auttoriiyor right to. exclude slavery,
because slaves are property by ythe laws
of some Of The States. As well might
it be argued that the Legislature cannot
Iegislate to exclude intoxicating liquors
or gambling apparatus, because they are
recognized as property by the laws of
some of the States. The inevitable con-
clusion it seems TO me must be, that at
the first settlement and organization Of
a Territory, emigrants from all the States
and from foreign lands can go there, and
carry with them their property of all kinds;
but when there, and legally organized,
they and their property mnst be subject
to-the local law, enacted by majority of
the people through their legally chosen
Representatives, .sdi .lr3g4I Il.oli25qsa1
The Territory Of Kansas in the exer-
ereise Of her legislative powers, shortly
after her organization, established and
protected slavery within her borders; but
at a subsequent period the legislature