The Athens post. [volume] (Athens, Tenn.) 1848-1917, 1860-12-14

| 81 NC obserNtl, Judging lTOIn present III
dications, that no probability exists OF
the passage of such an act, 10y a majority
of both Houses, either in the present or
the next Congress. Surely, under these
circumstances, we ought to be restrained
from present action by the precept of
Him who spal<e us never man spakc:
that sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof" The day of evil may never
come, unless we shall rashly bring it up
| ON ourselves.
1t is alleged MS ono cause for immedi-
ate secession that the Southern States are
deried equal rights with the other states
in the common Territories. But by what
authority are these denied? Not by Con
gress, which has never passed, and | be-
lieve never will pass, any act to exclude
slavery from these Territories; and GER
tainly not by the Supreme Court, which
J has solemnly decided.that aaves are prop
erty and, like all other property their
owners have right to take them into the
common Territories. and hold them there
under the protection of the Constitution.
SO far, then, as Congress is concerned,
the objection is not to anything they
| have already done, but to what they may
do hereafter. 1t will surely be admitted
that this Apprehension of future danger
is no good reason for an immediate lisso-
luton of the Union. 1t is true that the
Territorial Legislature OF Kansas, on the
23d OF February, 1860, passed in great
haste an act, over the veto of the Gov
ernor, declaring that slavery ''is, and
shall be, forever prohibited in this Terri
tory Such an act, however, plainly
violating the rights of property secured
by the Constitution, will surely be declar-
ed void by the judiciary whenever it shall
be presented in II legal form.
Only three days after my Inauguration
the Supreme Court of the United States
solemnly adjudged that this power did
not exist in a territorial legislature
Yet such has been the factious temper
OF the times that the correctness of this
decision has been extensively impugned
| before the people, and the question has
given rise to angry political conflicts
| throughout the country. Those who
have appealed from this Judgment of our
! highest constitutional tribunal to popu-
lar assemblies would, if they could, in
vest II territorial legislature with power to
annul the sacred rights OF property
| This power Congress is expressly forbid
den by the Federal Constitution to eXer-
else. Every State legislature in the
! Union is forbidden by its own constitu-
ton to exercise it. 1t cannot be eXer.
cised in any State except by the people
in their highest sovereign capacity when
| framing or amending their State const-
tuition. In like manner, it can only be
exercised by the people OF u Territory
represented in II convention of delegates
for the purpose Of framing II constitution
| preparatory to admission as State in the
| Union. Then, and not until then, are
they invested with power to decide the
question whether slavery shall or shall
not exist within their limits. This is an
act of sovereign authority, and not Of
subordinate territorial legislation. Were
| it otherwise, then indeed would the
equality of the States in the Territories
! be destroyed and the rights OF property
in slaves would depend, not upon the
guarantees of the Constitution, but upon
! the shifting malorities of an irrepressi-
! bic territorial legislature. Such u doc
trine, from its intrinsic unsoundness, can
not long influence any considerable por-
| ton of our people, much less can it ai-
ford good reason for IL dissolution Of the
| Union.
The most palpablc violations of consti-
tutional duty which have yet been COM
mittcd consist in the acts of different
| State Legislatures to defeat the eXecu-
ton of the fugitive slave law. 1T ought
to be remembered, however, that for
these acts, neither Congress nor any
| President can justly be held responsible.
| Having been passed III violation OF the
Federal Constitution, they are, therefore,
null and void. All the courts, both
State and national, before whom the ques.
ton has arisen, have from the beginning
declared the fugitive slave law to be con
stitutional. The single exception is that
of State court in Wisconsin: and this
has not only been reversed by the proper
appellate tribunal, but has met with
such universal reprobation that there
can be no danger from it as precedent
The validity OF this law has been estab.
lished over and over again by the Su
preme Court of the United States with
perfect unanlmity. 1t is founded upon
an express provision Of the Constitution
Repairing ,hat fugitive slaves who escape
from service in one State to another shall
be delivered up" to their masters
Without this provision it is well-known
historical fact that the Constitution Itself
could never have been adopted by the
Convention. In one form or other under
the acts Of 1893 and 1850, both being
substantially the same, the fugitive-slave
law has been the law of the land from
the days of Washington until the present
moment. Here, then, a clear case is pre-
sented, in which it will be the duty o.
the next President, as it has been my
own, to act with yigor in executing this
supreme law against the conflicting en-
actments of State Legislatures. Should
he fail in the performance of this nigh
duty, he will then have manifested q
disregard of the Constitution and laws
to the great injury of the people of nearly
one-half of the States OF the Union.--
But are we to presume in advance that
he will thus violate his duty? This
would be at war with every principle OF
Justice and of Christian charity. Let Us
wait for the overt act The fugitive-slave
law has been carried into execution in
every contested case since the commences
ment of the present administration
though often, it is to be regretted, with
great loss and inconvenience to the mas
ter and with considerable expense to
the Government. Let us trust that the
State Legislatures will repeal their un-
constitutional and obnoxious cnactments.
Unless this shall be done without un-
necessary delay, it is impossible for any
human power TO save the Union.
The Southern States, standing on the
basis of the Constitution, have u right
to demand this act of justice from the
States of the North. Should it be refu-
sed, then the Constitution to which all
the States are parties, will have been
wilfully violated by one portion of them
in provision essential to the domestic
security and happiness of the remainder.
In that event, the injured States, after
having first used all peaceful and consti,
tutional means to obtain redress, would
|