The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-09-19

" ing MIN TO point out some contrlvance or III
)" vice BY which the Territorial Legislature coal
y violate the constitutional rights of the Soutl
i ern States? Not he! He was difforer
y man from that Nor would Clay, nor any
d the great and good men who figured in tn
: earlier days of history. [Applause.1
= Why, what has been the theory and prac
!; ticesall the time? What have been thu rela
|, tons of the Territories to the Federal Govern
S ment? Originally and often they We're GOV
: erned by Judges and council appointed b
: the President and Congress, just for the pur
e pose of securing property, and keeping tn
9 elements Of order there until sufficient popu
r lation should be gathered to make a State. Al
r the precedents of the Government are will
r US. Their governors, their judges, are ap
pointed by the President and Senate, and pail
, out of the Treasury of the United States. Tn
) very Legislative authority which they invoke
to exclude your property from the Terrific
ries is n Legislature whose daily expenses art
paid out of the Treasury Of the United States
by money contributed in part by your taxa
ton and mine. Applause.l The very legis
lative authority which they invoke to exclude
your property from the Territories-that very
Legislature is paid out of the national treasu-
ry, and paid out of taxation raised in part upon
the very description of property they propose
to expel.
said that the practice of the Government
was different. 1t has been so always. Allow
me simply to give one illustration which
have heard used, and which seems to me to
be conclusive. The theory is, that in the
common domain of the United States, and
which Congress holds as their trustee, the citi-
zens stand on an equal footing, both as to the
right of person and property. That is sim
pie and short way of stating it, and sounds
like constitutional doctrine. Suppose a vessel
should 60 out of the harbor of Norfolk for
| New Orleans, laden with all kinds of freight,
and among the rest fifteen or twenty slaves on
board These gentlemen tell you that slave
ry is local-so local that it cannot get beyond
those limits without local law to take it there.
This ship gets beyond the one marine league
from shore, out upon the open sea. 1t is not
within the limits of any State-it is upon the
common highway of nations. Could British
cruiser come and take these slaves from the
American vessel, and say that they were free
because slavery is local, and are not within
the limits of any State? No. Yet what pro-
tects them? Nothing but the deck of the
American ship, and the flag of the American
Confederacy that floats about the vessel That
deck is the common domain of the United
States, and it protects the property of the clti-
zens. for it is on the common domain Of the
Union. 1t has been decided again and again,
practically, in the history of our Government;
and if that protection is afforded on the deck
of the Ship is it not likewise afforded on the
land, which is also the common domain Of this
Union?
But, fellow-citizens, one other word on that
point. / see a speech made the other day at
Petersburg, Virgins, by the Senator from Hi
nois, in which he holds the following language
to the people of that city:
"Yeu have the same right under the Con-
stitution to go and carry your slaves into the
Territories that | have mine. You have the
same right to carry your slaves, cattle or
horses, that have to carry any property that
l possess and you have it." he says, under
the Constitution of the United States. When
you get there, you and stand on the same
footing of equality under the law You bring
your property with you, subject to the local
law, and | bring mine, subject to the same
local law" He says you have the right to
carry the property there, under the Constitu- |
ton Of the United States. and he had said in |
the Senate that if the Constitution carried it |
there, no power on earth can take it away. |
Now he says you have Alright to carry in under
the Constitution, but when you get it there,
it is subject to what? Protection as every |
other right? No! But to the local law, made
by a subordinate local authority The mo-
ment it gets there under the Constitution, they
can drive it off against the Constitution. GEN
tlemen, if these positions are not inconsistent
if they are not trifhng with the intelligence of
a free people who want to find-out and know
their rights, / am mistaken.
Mr.. Douglas says, Congress never yet
passed law for the protection of any mans
property in the Territories. Every man who
goes to the Territories with his wife and chill
dren and servants, is subject to the local law,
md relies upon the law for protection"
Let US see if that is so. The Senator from
illinois says, Congress never yet passed
aw for the protection of any mans property
n Territory forbear to repeat what the
supreme Court has decided, but / like to get
sound, constitutional idea into the minds OF
ny fellow citizens.
Congress nevern says MIR. Douglas, passed
law for the protection ofany mans property
n Territory" Gentlemen, it has done so in
many instances. happened to meet, the
,ther day, with striking case in which it did
70. In 1884, when great statesmen were in
he Senate and House of Representatives, and
Andrew Jackson was President Of the United
States, the Legislature of the Territory of
Florida undertook to lay tax upon the slaves
If non-residents higher than upon the slaves
If residents. The non-residents from Vir-
,inia and other States appealed to Congress to
'estrain the Legislature of Florida from dis
against their property.
The Committee, in their report say
1.-THE Committee are satisfied that the me-
norialists are entitled to relief 1t is certainly
against the policy of the United States, as |
we'll as the dictates of common justice, to allow
my Territorial Legislature to tax the property
If non-residents higher than the same property
If residents.
"The Committee think that Congress should
always protect the property of citizens of the
United States when subjected to the opera
ion of unjust legislation by Territorial gov
In the case above referred to- that
principle of protection is asserted, and main
aimed in practice; the same principle requires
he same practice now, and for that purpose
he Committee herewith report BILL"
Pardon me-the two sections are short |
will read them
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of !.
of the United States of I,
America in Congress assembled, That all such
cts or parts OF acts, passed by the Legislative
jeuncil of Florida, as may impose higher tax
N the slaves or other property Of nonresident
itizens be and the same are hereby repealed
nd declared null and void"
Not content with that, the second section .
,rovides that if any person shall attempt to
nforce the law, he should be liable to punish
nent. The section reads thus
"And be it further enacted, That if any
person shall attempt to enforce any of the acts
# the Territory Of Florida, as aforesaid, by :.
or receiving any tax, imposition or
1
such person shall on conviction thereof be
punished by fine not exceeding $500, or by
Imprisonment not exceeding six months, or
either or both of said punishments."
Oh,gentlemen, would it not be an insult to 7,
your understanding tosay that was not an in
of Congress to protect private prop
erty from the encroachment of territorial legis-
alton? Yet that gentleman says Congress
never yet passed law for the protection of
any mans property in Territories" OF course
do not doubt that he believed the statement,
but believe him at the expense of his intelli- !
gence. Il Applause.
The principles have tried feebly to yindi-
cate here, are the principles on which the Con-
stitutional Democracy stand to- day; the only
principles upon which any human being will
pretend to charge them with the purpose of
disunion. If they are the principles Of the
Constitution and the Union, then We are Con-
stitutionalists and Unionists. Yet, fellow
citizens, for two on three months back you
haveheard one loud and incessant clafnor, that
] and the Constitutional Democracy belong to
a disunion organization, and that our aim is to
break up the confederation of the States.
hardly know, as far as that is a personal
charge against myself how to answer it.
! A voice." Call them 1iars.',' /,
hear it repeated by; anonymous writers
and wandering orators all over the country.
Their whole stock in trade is "disunion dis
union These men belong to a party intend
ed to break up the Union Of the States'' You
appeal to them, by reason, in vain. You say,
gentlemen, these are the principles Of the Con-
stitution, as determined BY the practice Of the
Government. The answer is " disunion." You
say to them, they are the principles of the
Union and the Constitution, as determined by
the highest tribunal in the land. The answer
is, "disuni0n.p You say we are asserting
those principles sanctioned BY practice and