The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-08-31


in his rights to reclaim his slave properly.
In all ether respects slaves stand on tne
same footing with all other property" tne
constitution makes no distinction between
that description of property and otner pro,
perty owned by citizen; +" and : no woru
can be found in the constitution wnicn gives
Congress greater power over save Rto.
perry, or which entities properly Oh .na'
kind to less protection than properly ol auy
other description" This is the basis upon
which all rights pertaining to slave proper
tv. either in the States or the territories,
stand under the constitution as expounded
by the Supreme Court in the bred Scott
case.
Inasmuch as the constitution has delega-
ted no power to the federal government in
respect to any other kind OF property be-
longing to the citizen-neither introducing,
establishing, prohibiting nor excluding it
anywhere within the dominion of the United
States but leaves the owner thereof perfectly
free to remove into any state or territory
and carry his property with him, and hold
the same subject to the local law, and rely
ing upon the local authorities for protection,
it follows, according to the decision of the
court that slave property stands on the same
footing, is entitled to the same rights and
mmunities, and in like manner is dependent
upon the local authorities and laws for pro-
lection.
The court refers to that clause of the
constitution which provides for the rendition
of fugitive slaves as their authority for say
ing that "the right of property in slaves is
distinctly and expressly affirmed in the con.
,, 70 hot
it will be seen that, while the word "slaves"
is not used, still the constitution not only
recognizes the right of property in slaves, as
stated by the court, but explicitly states
what class of persons shall be deemed slaves,
and under what laws or authority they may
be held to servitude, and under what cir
cumstances fugitive slaves shall be restored
to their owners, in the same section, as
follows:
mo person held to service or labor in one
State, under the ia,cs thereof escaping into an
other, shall. in consequence of any law or regu-
lation therein, be discharged from such service
or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of
the party to whom such service or labor may
be due"
Thus it will be seen that slave, within
the meaning of the constitution, is "a person
uClu W SGTNlCC VI ldUOr III Ouc OIdCc, UHuET
tue lars thereof"-not under the Constitution
of the United States, nor by the laws thereof,
nor by virtue of any federal authority what.
soever, but under the laws of the particular
State where such service or labor may be
due.
1t was necessary to give this exact defni-
ton of slavery in the constitution in order
to satisfy the people of the South as well as
of the North. The slaveholding States
would never consent for moment that their
domestic relatiOns-and especially their right
of property in their slaves--should be Deepen
dent on federal authority, or that Congress
should have any power over the subject
either to extend, confine, or restrain it f;
much less to protect or regulate it--lest,
under the pretense of protection and regula-
ton, the federal government, under the influ-
ence of the strong and increasing anti
slavery sentiment which prevailed at that
period, might destroy the institution, and
divest those rights of properly in slaves
which were sacred under the laws and con-
situations of their respective States so long
as the federal government had no power to
interfere with the subject.
In like manner the n-slaveholding states,
while they were entirely willing to provide
for the surrender of all fugitive slaves as is
conclusively shown by the unanimous vote
of all the States in the convention for the
provision now under consideration--and to
leave each State perfectly free to hold slaves
under it's own laws, and by virtue of its own
separate and exclusive authority, so long as
it pleased, and to abolish it when it chose,
were unwilling to become responsible for its
existence by incorporating it into the con-
stitution as national institution, to be pro-
tected and regulated, extended and controlled
by federal authority, regardless of the wishes
of the people, and in defiance of the local
laws of the several states and territories.
For these opposite reasons the Southern and
Northern States united in giving unanl
nous vote in the convention for that prOvi-
sion of the constitution which recognizes
slavery as local institution in the several
states where it exists, "under the laws
thereof" and provides for the surrender Of
fugitive slaves.
1t will be observed that the term Estate
is used in this provision, as we'll as in vari-
GUS other parts of the Constitution, in the
same sense in which it was used by Mr.
Jefferson in his plan for establishing govern
ments for the new States in the territory
ceded and to be coded to the United States
and by Mr.. Madison in his proposition to
confer on Congress power to institute
temporary governments for the mes0 States
arising in the unappropriated lands OF the
United States" to designate the political
communities, territories as well as States
within the dominion of the United States
The word Estates" is used in the same
sense in the ordinance of the 18th OF July
1887, for the government of the territory
northwest of the river Ohio, which was
passed by the remnant of the Congress Of
the Confederation, sitting in New York
while its most eminent members were at
Philadelphia, as delegates to the federal
convention, aiding in the formation OF the
Constitution of the United States.
In this sense, the word Estate" is used in
the clause providing for the rendition OF
fugitive slaves, applicable to all political
communities under the authority of the
United States, including the territories as
we'll as the several States of the Union.
Under any other construction the right of
the owner to recover his slave would be
restricted to the States of the Union, leaving