The weekly Mississippian., 1860-09-26
Protection to Property In the Terrific
.ries...slave Code, &c.

Protection to Property II the Terrific |
.ries...slave Code, &c.
The question of the protection Of property
in the Territories has obtained much impor-
lance in the present canvass. The accusation |
against the friends of Mr.. Breckenridge Is
that they are for intervention to establish
slavery in the common Territories, belonging
equally to all the States. This charge is ut
terly without foundation in every aspect OF
the case.
Government was made for man and not
man for government" is one of the trulsms
Of the Democracy of the country. The strong
arm that has ever been raised against the GEN.
tralization of power in the Federal Govern
ment, has ever been raised by national Demo-
Gratis. Every unwarrantable assumption Of
power, every latitudinarian construction OF the
great Magma Charta, came from the opponents
of that party. We have ever insisted upon
strict construction of the powers granted in
the compact treaty, or constitution, made and
entered into by the original independent sou
ereign communities, or distinct sovereign Ma
r1oSs, which made the same Why was this
government made but for the mutual welfare
and common protection of life, liberty and the
enjoyment of civil, political and social rights,
and among these is the enjoyment of proper
ty, and protection in that enjoyment. For
these purposes was ourgovernment instituted,
and the powers necessary to this end were
given up, ceded, granted to federal head,
having legislative, judicial and executive
powers.
This federal authority, this central power,
was created and institute to secure 'life, lib
erty, and the pursuit ofhappnes." Necessa-
ry to these rights is the enjoyment of proper
ty. If Government was not made for this
purpose, what was it made for ? Let those
who oppose US answer. But how far can
this protection extend We answer ,elter-
euer the Jurisdiction Of the Government extends
and over all subjects and matters embraced
,oithin that jurisdiction.
We dare say, no one will call in question
this answer. If it be correct, then our op-
ponents are bound to acknowledge the correct
ness of the position assumed by the Democra-
tic party in their platform adopted at Balti-
more when they say:
That it is the duty of the Federal Govern
ment, in all its departments, to protect, when
necessary, the rights of persons and property
| in the Territories, and wherever else its con-
stitutional authority extends.
The only question that remains for our con-
sideration is, has the federal authority juris-
diction over the Territories belonging to the
United States Or does its constitutional
authority extend ever the rights of persons,
and property in the Territories?
We answer, yes. The Territories were
made a subject of legislation by the original
compact If Congress possesses the power to
build a military road through the Territories,
it also possesses the power to protect that
road from all injury, and to punish the offen-
ders. If Congress can establish post routes
and post Offices in Territory, it also possesses
the power to pass laws for the protection of
the same. If the fugitive slave law is valid
in the Territories, and Congress has made it
valid and operative, and the Supreme Court
has so adjudicated the question, we ask how
far removed is the question of protection of
persons and property, ennunciated in the De-
mocratic platform, from the same principle
that Congress acted upon in making the flgi-
tive slave law of full force and effect in the
Territories ? If Congress can pass laws for
the punishment of murder, piracy and treason
committed in the Territories, or upon the
high seas, does not its jurisdiction extend that
far, and is this not legislation for the protec-
tion Of property and of persons? To this end
Congress can legislate for the protection ofthe
master in the enjoyment of his property in his
slave.
A few years since a United States mer-
| chant vessel, with several slaves on board,
was driven by stress of weather into one of
the British West India possessions. The
British authorities there took possession of
the slaves. Our Government demandA4 full
remuneration to the owners of those Slaves
from the British Government; and the British
Government paid it-paid for the property they
had taken from our citizens, and that property
was in slaves. This case illustrates the prin.
ciple. In this case the master was upon the
high seas He held his slaves as property by
virtue of the principles of common law, and
while our Government had no right or au-
thority itself to take away thas property Of the
citizens of State, it was bound to protect
the master in his interest and right to the
property. So in the Territories. The Dem
oeratic party claim the same protection to the
master in his interest in slaves in the Ter
ritories.
The General Government sends its govern
or, its marshals its judges, into the Terrific
ries. For What :? Simply to protect persons
and property. The constitution recognizes
slaves as property, and the owner Of slaves is
entitled toprotection in the enjoyment of his
interest," as much so as the owner of horse.
The same principle applies to all kinds ofpro-
perty and the Government is bound to pro-
tect the citizen in holding his property from
the violence of robbers or fanatics. This is
all the Democratic party ask--it is all they
contend for.
DEMOCRATIC RALLY AT GHARLEsToN.-The
Tailatchian brings us glowing account of
grand rally Of the Democracy at Charleston
on fha 18th inst II avas addressed hv Hnns