Gazette and sentinel., 1860-09-22

could confer no power on any local government,
established by its authority, to violate the provls-
ions of the Constitution"
Again the Court says:
ut seems, however. TO be supposed that there Is
a difference between property in a slave and other
property. and that different rules may be APP
piled to it in expounding the Constitution OF the
United States. And the laws and usages OF ma
tons. aud the writings of eminent JurIsts upon the
relation of master and slave, and their mutual
rights and duties, and the powers which Govern
ments NAV exercise over it, have been dwelt upon
in the argument"
And they say that the idea got abroad through
the country through the speculations OF foreign
political writers. But the Court goes On to say
that the rights of persons and property, under
American laws, is defined by q written Constitu-
ton, and, finally, they say:
Ii the Constitution recognizes the right oil prop
cr.T of the masters in a slave, and makes no DIS
~tinction between that description of property and
other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal. act
ing under the authority of the United States,
whether it be Legislative, executive or Judicial, has
a right to draw such a distinction or deny to II
the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which
have been provided for the protection of private
property against the encroachments OF the Gov
ernment."
And who will DENY that q Territorial Leg
stature is a legislative tribunal acting under
the authority of the United States. And no
word can be found in the Constitution which
gives Congress a greater power over slave pro-
perty or which entities property OF that KIND
to less protection than property OF any other
description. The only power conferred Is the
power, coupled with the duty, of guarding. and
protecting the owner in his rights
Now, fellow-citizens, what is the authorita-
tive decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, TO whom we agreed To refer TINS
disputed question about the power of the Ter
%ritorial Legislature. They decide that what
ever territory the Federal acquires
as trustees for the citizens of all the States, with
their property, must enjoy 1t as common ciu-
zens of common States. Nothing else than a
sovereign being competent to dehne, deter
mine, or impair property. They declare lnat
the citizen enters the common territories with
the Constitution in his hands. They declare
that the Federal Government can confer no
protection to the citizen beyond what the Con
~stitution has given, and they say still less, can
it authorize u Territorial Legislature to eXer-
else powers which are denied to itself. Then,
for the purpose of clinching the whole subject,
they go on and say, the only power conferred
Is the power coupled with heduty of guarding
and protecting the ownerin his rights" They
decide that no distinction exists between pro
perty-that property in slaves Is recognized
by the Constitution of the United States, and
that there is no word in thatinstrument which
gives Congress power over 1t.
That is the decision. Human language
could not be more complete or more plain, If
the Court had written as much about 1t us po-
~liticians have made speeches over the question.
/ have heard it said that the case that went
to the Supreme Court of the United States,
was not the case which went from the Ter
~ritories, but q case that went from Il State,
and that therefore we are not bound by 1t
until a case arises in the territory and is taken
regularly to the Supreme Court of the United
States. That is in my mind a confession that
we agreed to leave it to the supreme Judicial
tribunal upon any case properly arising and
coming before that august body. 1t was d
proper case, and properly decided by the Court
1t covers the points Of difference between the
friends Of the Nebraska bill. 1t is not candid
nor manly, nor statesmanlike, to attempt L
dodge the results of that conclusion by saying
that that case went from a State and not from
q territory.
(Mr. b. read from the report in the Congress
sional Globe, vol. II. part ], p. 1867
A voice That is the true doctrine"
What was non intervention then? Wha
was non intervention in 1850 1t was to or
ganize Territorial Governments, open then
up to the common settlement of the people 0
the United States, from all the States
States. No legislation on the part Of Congress
in regard to slavery, nor BY the Territorial
Legislature during the territorial condition
but leaving it to the people of a territory
when they shall have attained to q condition
which entities them to admission as u State, t
decide for themselves.
That was non intervention, and that non in
PREVENTION would nave been felt in this result
You would nave gone in with your slaves AM
the citizen of Oh o with his property and
ANYBODY thought you had not a right to hol
your property there, the individual could hav
tested the question before the Court and
the decision had been against him there coul
have been no hostile action, and you woul
have enjoyed your property in peace and quiet
1t is as much a violation of the doctrine of non
intervention-the true and original doctrine
for the Territorial Legislature, under tn
auspices of Mr.. Douglas bran new theory, {
exclude slavery from a territory, as it woul
be for Congress to interfere by positive law.
/ have here-you may have read 1.-THE stat
ment of Daniel Webster, in the Senate, in regar
to bis idea of the relation of a Territorial Gov
eminent to the people of the United States. II
says:
"1he Territorial Governments are in a state
pupilage under the protection of the General Gov
eminent they have no power not given by Con
gress and it is our duty to provide for the peopl
of the territory a government to keep the peac
to secure their property, to assign to them a sui
ordinate legislative authority, to see that the pr
lection of their persons and the security of the
property are all regularly provided for, and
maintain them in that state until they grow I'M
sufficient Importance in point of population to |
admitted in the Union as a State upon the san
footing as the original States"
Do you suppose that Daniel Webster, after Ii
opinion of the Supreme Court that i have read
you, would have considered it becoming in him
point out some continuance or device by which II
Territorial Legislature could violate the Constitl
tinnal rights of the Southern States !? Not be Ii