The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-08-31

operation of such doctrine, there are those
who maintain that the court referred to and
included the slavery question within that
class of forbidden powers which although
the same in the territories as in the states)
could not be exercised by the people of the
territories.
If this proposition were true, which fortu-
nately for the peace and welfare of the whole
country it is not, the conclusion would inev-
itaby result, which they logically deduce
from the premises the constitution by
the recognition of slavery establishes it in
the territories beyond the power of the peo-
pie to control it by law, and guarantees to
every citizen the right to 60 there and be
protected in the enjoyment of his slave prop
erty ; and when all other remedies fail for
the protection of such rights of property, it
becomes the imperative duty of Congress
| Ito the performance of which every member
is bound by his conscience and his oath, and
| from which no consideration of political pol
icy or expediency can release him) to pro-
vide by law such adequate and complete
protection as is essential to the full enjoy
ment of an important right secured by the
constitution. Ifthe proposition be true, that
the constitution establishes slavery in the
territories beyond the power of the people le-
gally to control it, another result, no less
startling, and from which there is no escape
must inevitably follow The constitution
is uniform 4" everywhere within the domin.
ions of the United States us the same in
Pennsylvania as in Kansas-and if it be
true, as stated by the President in special
message to Congress, Z" that slavery exists
in Kansas by virtue of the constitution of
the United States" and that Kansas is
therefore at this moment as much a slave
State as South Carolina" why does it not
exist in Pennsylvania by virtue of the same
constitution
If 1T be said that Pennsylvania is sover-
eign state, and therefore has right to reg
ulate the slavery question within her own
limits to suit herself, it must be borne in
mind that the sovereignty of Pennsylvania,
like that of every other State, is limited by
the constitution, which provides that:
''This constitution, and all laws of the United
States which shall be made in pursuance there
of, and all treaties made, or shall be made, I'M
under the authority the United States, shall be
the supreme ia,c Of the land, and the judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, anything
IN the CONSTITUTE Or latcs of any State to the
contrary contrary notwithstanding"
Hence, the State of Pennsylvania, with
her constitution and laws, and domestic in
situations, and internal policy, is subor-
dinate to the Constitution of the United
States, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the territory of Kansas. The
Kansas N ebraska act says that the terri
tory of Kansas shall exercise legislative
power over call rightful subjects of legisla-
ton consistent with the constitution" and
that the people of said territory shall be
left "perfectly free to form and regulate
their domestic institutions in their own
way, subject only to the Constitution of the
United States" The provisions of this act
are believt d to be in entire harmony with
the constitution, and under them the people
of Kansas possess every right, privilege
and immunity, in respect to their internal
polity and domestic relations which the
people of Pennsylvania can exercise
under their own constitution and laws.
Each is invested with full, complete and
exclusive powers in this respect, "sub-
ject only to the Constitution of the United
States"
The question recurs then, if the Constitu-
tion does establish slavery in Kansas or any
other Territory beyond the power of the
people to control it by law, how can the
conclusion be resisted that slavery is estab-
lished in like manner and by the same au-
thority in all the States of the Union?
And if it be the imperative duty of Con-
gress to provide by law for the protection
of slave property in the territories upon the
ground that " slavery exists in Kansas"
land consequently in every other territory,)
g by virtue of the Constitution of the United
States" why is it not also the duty of Con-
gress, for the same reason, to provide SINH
lar protection to slave property in all the
States of the Union, when the legislatures
fail to furnish such protection?
Without confessing or attempting to
avoid the inevitable consequences of their
own doctrine, its advocates endeavor to
fortify their position by citing the bred
Scott decision to prove that the Constitu-
tion recognizes property in slaves-that
there is no legal distinction between this
and every other description OF property
that slave property and every other kind of
property stand on an equal footing-that
| Congress has no more power over the one
than over the other and consequently, can
not discriminate between them.
| Upon this point the court say:
| "Now as we have already said in an earlier
part of this opinion upon different point, the
right of property in slave is distinctly and
| expressly affirmed in the Constitution. :. And
| if the constitution recognizes the right of pro-
perty of the master in slave, and makes no
distinction between that description of proper
ty and other property owned by citizen, no
tribunal acting under the authority of the
United States, whether it be legislative, execu-
tive, or judicial, has right to draw such dis
tinction, or deny to it the benefit of the pro-
visions and guarantees which have been pro-
yided for the protection of private property
against the Entertainments of the government.
........... And the government in express
terms is pledged to protect it in all future time,
| if the slaue escapes from his o,oner. This is
| done in plain wOrds--toO plain to be misun.
aerstood. And no word can be found in the
Constitution which gives Congress gr alter
| power over slave property, 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
The rights of the owner which it is thus
made the duty of the federal government to
guard and protect, are those expressly pro-
vided for in the constitution, and defined in
clear and explicit language nv the court.