The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1860-01-26

positive law. which preserves its force long
after the reasons. occasion, and time itself
from whence it was created, is erased from
the memory; it is of a nature that nothing
can be suffered to support it but positive
law
That decision has never been questioned
in this country, until this new light OF the
Democratic party fell upon it in the decision of
the bred Scott case. in 1856. say all the ju-
rists, all men at home and abroad, who pro-
fess the christian religion. and obey the
equally imperative mandate of progressive
humanity, concur in the belief that slavery
is SO contrary to natural law that nothing but
positive law can support it. Under our Con-
stitution. we adopted the common law Of
England. and that was the law Of this State.
and of others. and it was decided again and
again in the courts of Louisiana, and of Ken
lucky, Of Virginia and Of Tennessee. and in
the other States of the Union, I believe,
without exception, that slavery was local aad
could only exist by virtue Of positive law
and when a citizen of Louisiana took his
slave to France, despotic government. and
brought her back, her application to be de-
clared free was carried to the Supreme Court
Of Louisiana and it was decided that mas
much as she had been carried into free ter
ritory she was free, according to all the dicta
upon the subject, once free and always Free
II has always been held that slavery was an
institution of municipal law and the moment
it was carried beyond the pale Of that Law,
that moment the rights of humanity and the
great reason to which all law appeals, step
ped IN and gave freedom, all have determin.
ed in the same way. every decision has been
in the same direction.
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.
cannot dwell upon this matter to go all
through the able argument OF Justice Curtis,
but there is 10 argument which he does not
produce. to support the position which have
laid down as being correct. save one. That
ono is this much talked Of and much vaun.
ted fugitive slave law. Let me ask you if
under the constitution slavery goes into the
territory of the United States, what do you
want with fugitive slave law? Answer /
me that. Why would you not be protected
in your slave property as much IN any State
Of the Union if it is property there and yet
you stood in Congress week after week, and
month after month. and l might say year
after year, contending for the recognition of
the rights Of the slave holding community to
recover fugitive slaves. 1t was all absurdify
TO quarrel about power which you assert is
in the Constitution You cannot prove that
ZIG CONSTITUTION SlsOS ehO PoVOi' - Souhoe
be done. 1t is in vain that you struggle
against the whole authority aud common
sense Of ages.
You now talk of legislative Intervention
by Congress to protect slavery in the terri
tories. What do you want with it if the
Constitution does not give it? What right
have you to it? therefore deny, on the
part of the Republican party. that there is
any such power under the Constitution per
Sc to carry slavery into the territories of the
United States. That was not the doctrine of
the Democracy Of 1852 or 1856. and only
after the enunciation of the Cincinnati plat
form, and the election Of James Buchanan,
did the Supreme Court screw themselves up
to the point that they could say that it was
law. Two Of the ablest and most distin-
guished jurists declaring that it was obiter
dicta. and was no law. God grant for our
freedom, every mans, white and black, that
you should say in your legislative assemblies
and national conventions, that il is no law
As live, it is not the law!
CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEMOCRATIC CLAIM.
See where it leads. Suppose that they
have, under the Constitution. the right to
carry slavery into the Territories. have you
not right to carry those same slaves into
Ohio? You have the right to carry a COW or
q horse a coat or a watch, into Ohio, and If
under the Constitution slavery is just sa-
cred and inviolate this species Of proper |
ty, how dare Gov. Chase say you shall not
bring your slaves and take possession of the
hotels of Columbus aud the farms now oc-
cupied by honest ireemen? tell you why I
you cannot it is because the right you assume
does not exist. The Constitution says:
This Constitution. and the laws Of the |
United States which shall be made in pur-
suance thereof, and all treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the authority of
the United States. shall be the supreme law
OF the land" &c.
There is the whole substance of the mat
ter. II the bred Scott decision is right. then
there is not one single foot of any but slave
territory from the Cult of Mexico to the hills
of Maine. If that be true. then indeed there
is no conflict going on, in .the language of
Seward aud the Democratic party, between
freedom and despotism, but that conflict is
ended. and you and l, and all of US, are
subject to q despotic power, which is higher
than the great dicta OF all the learned jurists
that have preceded us: higher than the Con-
situations of the States and the sovereignty
Of conventions: and last, if not least, higher
than the Constitutions of the United States; |
the palladium of liberty to US. If it be so,
the conflict is ended and we are all slaves; !
we are subject to a despotic power over
which We have no control--none on Gods |
earth. There is no appeal to popular sover-
eighty or States rights; there is but one APP
zeal. and that is to revolution; an appeal to
arms and the God of Hosts-which God for |
bid Therefore deny that we are factious-
ly purposing to prevent the admission fanny
more slaveholding States.
The fourth charge is that we propose Ito
repeal the Fugitive Slave law, and practical
ly refuse to obey the Constitution on that
subject" l do not deny that in some OF the
States there has been an effort made of that
kind. but do utterly deny that there is any
such clause in the platform of 1856 or the
call of 1860. Without dwelling further up
on that, pass it by. saying that do not
care To ayow that stand on the subject with