The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1860-03-01

suOulN CouHsOdte tuO YaOPSttJ " 1hS ecu
der mercies of the squatters, who make
their way from Germany. Ireland, China
Massachusetts,, and Kentucky Mr.
Breckinridge, or some Of your friends an
swer me. yes or DO, did you intend wher
you stood in favor OF Popular Sovereign
ty," or "Squatter Sovereignty" to con
6scate all the the property Of the slavehol.
ders of the United Statesl No sir. You
did not think that you had right to car
ry Slavery into the Territories That is
the truth Of the matter. In my opinion
that is what every Democrat believed -
We say that the belief was right. Whyl
Because all the aicta of all the jurists
from time immemorial, from Grotius tc
Mansfield; all jurists known to civiliza-
tion and fame, from the earliest days to
this, declared that slaves were peculiar
property, unlike other property known tc
men. What do the best English reports
tell US Before 1850 this was declared
and by the highest courts of the crown
outside of the House of Lords. This wa;
declared by Lord y .ansfeld, with this die
ts; which | shall read to you, that | m aJ
be understood, in that case when Currar
grew so eloquent, when he declared that
whenever man stood upon British sol
bis chains fell from him:
"The state OF slavery is of such ma
ture that it is incapable of being intro
duced on any reasons, moral or political
but only BY positive law, which preserves
its force long after the reasons, occasion
and time itself from whence it was crea.
ted, is erased from the nemoryi it is OF a
nature that nothing can be suffered to sup
port it but positive law"
That decision has never been question
ed in this country, until this new light OF
the Democratic party fell upon it in the
decision of the Dred Scott case, in 1856
| say all the jurists, all men at home and
abroad, who profess the Christian religion,
and obey the equally imperative mandate
of progressive humanity, concur in the
belief that Slavery is contrary to natural
law that nothing bat positive law can
support it. Under our Constitution, We
adopted the common law of L ngland ,and
that was the law of this State, and of 9th
ers, 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, believe
without exception, that Slavery was local,
and could only exist by virtue of positive
law, and when citizen of Louisiana took
his slase to France, a despotic govern
mept, and brought her back, her applioa-
ton to be declared free was carried to
the Supreme Court Of Louisiana, and il
was declared that inasmuch as she had
been carried into free Territory she was
free according to all the diets upon the
subject, 'onoe free and always free" 1t
has always been held that slavery was an
institution of municipal law, and the mo-
meDt it was carried beyond the pale OF
that law, that moment the rights of hu-
Uanity, and the great reason to which all
Law appeals, stepped in and gave freedom;
all have determined in the same way,
every decision has been in the same d.
rectioD.
The Fugitive Slave Law.
cannot dwell upon this natter to 60
ell through the able argument of Justice
Curtis, but there is no argument which
he does not produce, to support the po'l
ton which | have laid down as being cor
rect, save one. That one is this much
talked of and much vaun.ed Fugitive Slave
Law. Let me ask you if under the Con-
stitution slavery goes into the Territory
of the United States, what do you want
with a Fugitive Slave lawl Answer me
that Why would you not be protected
in your slave property as much IN any
State of the Union il it is property there
and yet you stood in Congress week after
week, and month after month, and might
say year after year. contending for the re-
cogDition of the rights of the slaveholding
com munity to recover fugitive slaves. 1t
was all absurdity to quarrel abont pow
er which you assert is in the Constitution.
You cannot prove that the Constitution
gives the power. 1t cannot be done. 1t
is in vain that you struggle against the
whole authority and common sense of ages.
You now talk of legislative interven-
tion By Congress to protect Slavery in the
Territories. 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 Demoo-
racy of 1852 or 1855, and only after the
enunciation of the Cincinnati Platform,
and the election of James Buchapan, did
the Supreme Court screw themselves up
to the point that they could say that it
was law. Two of the ablest and most
distinguished Jursts declaring that it was
obiter dista. and was no law God grant
for our freedom. every mans white and
black, that you should say in your Legis-
lative Assemblies and National Conven.
tions, that il is no law. AS | live it is no
law.
consequences of the Democratic Claim.
See where it leads. Suppose they have
II A. - o.