Daily national Democrat., 1860-02-23
Dodging the Question.

we dSkeu lhe GAIHes buS V1oSh""i wv
other day, (hy way of seeing it founder in
an attempt to sustain the doctrine of inter-
vention as Ibid down in Mr.. Buchanan's last
message) whether the Constitution, as IN
terpreted by the Dred Scott decision, carried
slavery into the Territories or whether it
simply failed to prohiJitit from going there
1t answers us by giving sort of abstract OF
the Dred Scott decision. We ask for its in
terpreta.on of the decision, and it cites the
decision itself This is mere lodging oil
the question.
We say that the Dred Scott decision com
mits no such absurdity as to assert as Mr'
Buchanan does, that slavery exists by vir-
tue of the Constitution :" because such an
assertion would be contrary to former deels-
ions of the Supreme Court declaring slavery
70 be solely the creature Of local sovereignty,
and because it is perfectly apparent that,
under such decision, slaves would be prop
erty in the free States as well as the slave
States-the inference being irresistible. that
if slavery exists by virtue of the Constitu
tion, no local law can affect it. Inasmuch as
it does not exist by virtue Of the Constitu-
ton, Maine prohibits it snd South Carolina
allows it. The Dred Scott decision declares
that Congress capnot prohibit slavery in the
Territories II they cannot prohibit it, they
cannot establish it, and so inevitable is this
conclusion, that the interventionists invaria-
by use the word protect" instead of "estab
lish," when they advocate a Slave Code for
the Territories. If Congress can establish
slavery, under the plea that they are pro
tectiSg it, why, then, slavery may be estab-
lished by act Of Congress, and the people
never know the difference. But, the fact is
that Congress can no more protect slavery in
the Territories than they can establish it.
The logic Of this is plain. They cannot es.
tablsh and they cannot prohibit slavery in
the Territories, because the subject is beyond
their control. They could do neither the
one nor the other Of these things, unless
slavery existed by virtue of the Constitution
So, neither can they protect an institution
which depends for its existence upon local
law and is not of a national character. The
Fugitive Slave Law is nothing more than a
recognition Of this same local law establish
ing or prohibiting slavery. 1t remands the
slave property back to the law which crea-
ted it; and the Constitutional provision upon
which that law is based is the best evidence
in the world that in the opinion of the
faamers Of the Constitution, the local law of
the place to which a slave might flee would
rule as against the local law of the place
from which he fled, unless it was especially
provided that the fugitive should te returned
upon demand. The very necessity of such
provision shows conclusiyely that slavery
does not exist by virtue of the Federal Con-
stitution, but is only recognized as existing
by virtue Of the lea loci which establishes it.
Hon. Reverdy johnson, Attorney for the
South in the Dred Scott case, and a Southern
citizen says in his late pamphlet, referring
to the point as to whether Congress could
protect slavery in the Territories:
lfCongress cannot either prohibit or establish
II, can they legislate to protect such property IN
such Territory? This question certainly can
only be answered in the affirmative if slavery
exists III such Territory "by virtue Of the Con-
sutution Of the United States" If it does SO
exist It is certainly within the power of Congress
To iegiSlae for It's protection. But does it SO ex-
istY In special message by President Buchan-
an to Congress- he states that "it has been solemn
ly adludged by the highest judicial tribunal
known 10 our laws, that slavery exists in Kan
sas by virtue Of the Constitution of tue United
States But the President evidently msappre-
hended the opinion to which he referred. There
is no such doctrine to be found in 1t, either in
words or by any fair inference. Al that the
court decided and as to this point il was the only
question before them-was that the Constitution
ala not prohibit the institution, aud that It gave
no power To Congress 10 prohibit. The PROPOSE |
ton before them was as 10 the congressional /
power.
The proposition before them was as to the
congressional power. The question Of Ter
'itorial power was not decided. And it re-
mains yet to be decided. In the meantime,
we cannot, by any process of reasoning
which seems to us at all sound, arrive at any |
other conclusion than that the Ter loci in |
Territory is the only protection which slavery
can constitutionally have, other than those
Federal laws which merely recognize slavery
" here it is already established by the local
sovereignty.