Pointe Coupee Democrat. [volume] (False River [i.e. New Roads], Parish of Pointe Coupee [La.]) 1858-1862, 1860-07-28

otates OF MS liberty or property, merely
because he came himself Or brought his
property into a particular Territory of
the United States, and who had com
mitted no offense against the laws, could
hardly be digniied with due process of
law.
So, too, it will hardly be contended
that Congress could by law quarter a
soldier in a house in Territory without
the consent of the owner, in time of peace;
nor IN time of war, but in a manner to
be prescribed by law. Nor could they
by law forfeit the property of a citizen
IN a Territory, who was convicted of
treason, for a longer period than the life
OF the person convicted; nor take private
property for public use, without just
compensation.
The powers over person and property,
OF which we speak, are not only not
granted by Congress, but are in express
terms denied, and they are forbidden to
exercise them. And this prohibition is
not confined to the States, but the words
are general, and extend to the whole
Territory v which the Constitution
gives it power to lcgislate, including
those portions of it remaining under
Territorial Government, as we'll as that
covered by States. 1t is a total absence
of power everywhere within the domin.
ion of the United States, and places the
citizens Of a Territory, so far as these
rights are concerned, on the same foot
ing with the citizens of the States, and
guards them as firmly and plainly
against any inroads which the General
Government might attempt, under the
plea of implied or incidental powers.
And if Congress itself cannot do this
if it is beyond the powers conferred on
the Federal Governmental will be ad-
mitted, we presume, that it could not
authorize a Territorial Government to
exercise them. It could confer no power
on any local Government, established by
its authority, to violate the provisions
Of the Constitution.
1t seems, however, to be supposed,
that there is a difference between prop
erty in a slave and other property, and
that different rules may be applied to it
in ~expounding the Constitution of the
United States. And the laws and usa-
ges of nations, and the writings of emf
nent jurists upon the relations of master
and slave, and their mutual rights and
duties, and the powers which Govern
ments may exercise over it, have been
dwelt upon in the argument.
But in considering the question be-
fore us, it must be borne in mind that
there is no law Of nations standing be-
tween the people Of the United States
and their Government, and interfering
with their relationpto each other. The
powers of the Government, and the
rights Of the citizen under it are positive
and practical regulations plainly written
down. The people of the United States
have delegated to it certain enumerated
powers, and forbidden it to exercise
others. 1t has no power over the perl
son or property of q citizen but what
the citizens of the United States have
granted. And no laws or usages of
other nations, or reasoning Of statesmen
or j~urists upon tile relations Of master
and slave, a enlarge the powers of the
Government, OF take from the citizens
the rights they have reserved. And i'll
the Constitution recognizes the right of
property of the master in a slave, and
makes no distinction between that de-
scrlptlon OF property and other property
owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting
under the authority of the United States,
whether it be Legislative, executive or
Judicial, has a right to draw such a dis
tlnction, or deny to it the benefit of the
provisions and guarantees which have
been provided for the protection of pri-
ate property against the encroachments
OF the Government.
Now, as we have already said in an
earlier part of this opinion, upon a diff
ferent point, the right of property in a
slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed
under the Constitution. The right to
trailc in i, like an ordinary article Of
merchandise and property, was g~uaran-
teed to the citizens Of the United States.
I'D every State that might desire it, for
twenty years. And the Governments in
express terms is pledged to protect it in
all future time, if the slave escapes from,
bis owner. This is done in plain words
too plain to be misunderstood. And
word a be found in the Constitu-
which gives Congress a greater
power over slave property, or which en-
titles property of that kind to less pro
lection than property of any other de-
scription. The only power conferred is
power coupled with the duty of
guarding and protecting the owner in
his rights.
Upon these considerations, it is the
of the Court thatthe act of Con-
sress which prohibited 4 citizen from
and owning property Of this