The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1860-02-16

| yania inst as we'll as in Kansas or in South
l.. Carolina by virtue Of the same Constitution,
. since Pennsylvania is subordinate to the
Constitution in the same manner aud to the
same extent as South Carolina and Kansas?
Just so. Mr.. Douglas having been SO pos
tive, he cannot deny Us the privilege OF max
ing a lew logical deductions from his own
premises. We expect him to proceed in the
| following manner: Since slave is held un-
. der the laws Of a State, and not under the
1t Constitution or the laws ofthe United States.
slarery onIy erists By virtue Of local iap,
or, as the Court OF Appeals OF Kentucky ex-
presses it, the right to hold a slave exists
. only by posttire la,c Of a mansctPdt char
l. ucter, and has no foundation In the laws OF
nature, or the unwrtten and common law.
If slavery cannot exist except by virtue OF
local law Of a municipal character, 1T follows,
as an irresistible consequence, that slave
holder cannot hold . slave as property In
territory where there is no local law Of a mu
nicipal character establishing that right Of
property And, further. the right to hold
slave having no foundation IN the law of ma
ture, or the unwrtten and common law, we
are forced to the conclusion that slave, bro't
! by his owner upon the soil OF a Territory be-
fore the Territorial Legislature have enacted
laws establishing slavery. becomes OF neces-
sty free, for there is no local law OF a munic-
ipal character under which lle might be held
as a slave. This principle is recognized by
the decisions of several Southern Courts
Having gone SO far, (and, indeed. l cannot
see how a logical mind can escape these con-
clusions from Mr.. Douglass own premises
Douglas would be obliged to define his pop
ular sovereignty to be the right of the people
of a Territory, represented IN tue Territorial
Legislature. to admit slavery by positive en-
! tbay ElH ~ Ep/UD rPY
understood that shareholder has not
tie least shadoac Of a right to take has STARE
property into tie territory 5efore such posttiUe
legislation has been had. This definition
would have at least the merit OF logical con-
sistency.
But what does Mr Douglas say? sSla-
very SO he tells us in his Harper Magazine
article, slavery being the creature Of local
| legislation, and not of the Constitution of
| the United States, it follows that the Con-
stitntion does not establish slavery in the
Territories beyond the po,oer of the people to
control 1t by lan.' What? The Constitu
ton does not establish slavery in the Terri
tories beyond a certain something What
does that mean? IL slavery is the creature
OF local law, how can the Constitution, by its
own force, permit slavery to go into Terri
tory at all!
NAV we'll take care not to fall into the trap
of sophistry. Why does he not speak of
the admission Of slavery by positive enact
ments? Why not even of the power OF the
people to erclude it by law? We look in
vain for light in Harper's Magazine, (and is
it indeed true, what Judge Black Intimates.
that that article is one OF the obscurest doc
uments by which ever politician attempted
to befog his iollowers?) but we may gather
Mr.. Douglass real opinion from another
manifesto preceding this. In his New Or
leans speech, delivered after his recent sue
cess in Illinois, he defined his position. in
substance, as follows: "The Democracy of
Illinois hold that a STAKEHOLDER has the same
right to take his slave property into a Ter
'ritory as any other man has to take his
: horse or his merchandise
What? Slavery is the creature of local
law and vet a STAKEHOLDER has the right to
take his slave property into a Territory be-
fore any local law has given him that right?
A slave does not become free, when volun-
tarily brought by his owner upon the soil of
q Territory where no positive local law es-
{ tablishing slavery exists. How is this pos
, sible? How can even the elastic mind of a
, Democratic candidate for the Presidency
unite these contradictory assumptionsl Ap-
plause. And yet there it stands, and moth
ing that NJ. Douglas ever said be more
, uuequivocal in its meaning. And here again
We may claim the privilege of drawing a
few logical deductions from Mr.. Douglas 5
own premises. Ii. as Mr.. Douglas distinct
" and emphatically tells US, STAKEHOLDER
. has a right to take his slave, as property in :
, to Territory. and to hold him there as
| property. before any legislation that point
is had, from what source does that right
, arise? Not from the law of nature, for the
iyht to hold a slave Is ''unfounGed in the
+ law of nature. and in the unwritten and COM
!, mon law" and even Mr.. Douglas. little as
!, he may care about nature and her laws, will
= hardly dare to assert that the system of slave
!. labor is the neutral and normal condition OF
society. 1. must then spring from positive
j, law. But from what kind of positive law
!. Not from any positive law of local and
\ municipal character. tor there is none such
). in the Territory so far. Where its source
y then There is but one kind of positive Law
|, to which the Territories are subject before
;, any local legislation has been had. and tha
= IS the Coastittstioa of the Uaite3 States -
!. II, therefore. Mr.. Douglas asserts, as be does
: that STAKEHOLDER has right to lake hi
;, slave as property into Territory. he must
:. ~ the same time, admit that, IN the sbsenc,
- of local legislation positively establishing
:, slavery. the Constitution OF the L nited State
= the only valid law existing there, must b
j the source Of that right What else doe
!, Mr.. Buchanan assert. but that slavery exist
"a in the Territories By virtue of the Feders
Constitution Where is. then. the point o
>. difference btween Mr.. Buchanan aud NJ.
,e Douglas? Way all this pomp and circum
a. stance OF glorious war; Whence these ierc
ee battles between the Montechi aud Cspulst,
- of the Democratic camp? Are We not broth
a, erss
II But Mr. Douglas is statesman. $50 the
g. are all. all stasesmen.) and presends thu, tn
al Constitution does not establish slavery in ,h