The Camden weekly journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1853-1861, 1860-07-03

- our friend, a FARMER.
Aia. .Ep1roR:-I agree with yoar corrcspon-
dcnt; a Farmer" when he says y$:-"lhe Jun
Jainentat principle of the Revolution was that
: the colonies were co-oriinate members with
Great Britain. and with each other of an En-
piirc united hy a common Executive Sovereign
bs. nor. by q coniifsn Legislative Sovereign
,n,,,i b. y
distinct in each American Tfarlianient2s ms in the
british Parliament. And the royal preroga-
tive was in force in e;rh colony bv virtue OF
its acknowledging the King for its Executive
Magistrate, as it was in Great Britain by virtue
of like acknowledgment there. a denial of
these principles by Great Britain and the as
:scrtiun of them by America, produced the
Revolution" But We do not SO fully under
stand him when be tells us:-"Now. instead of
tic "royal prerogatvc" and ''common Exccll-
tive Sovereign" or "kihg," substitute the Con-
stitution of the United States, which is tlc on
Nv representative of common Sovereignty
which We acknowledge, and tLis paragraph
will correctly describe the relation which ought
of right to stSist between the Federal Govern
,ncnt and its colonies OF Territories"
Now it docs seem to me there savast lfrr
erce between the King of any country and the
mere Constitution of the United States. a
King is living, acting, thinking being, but the
Constitution, without the law making. the law
executing and the law cxpon"dlng departments
is mere Instrument of,writirg, that has 10
more force or vitality about it than any other
iranin,atc thing. So that when We sl'eak of
the Constitution as All active principle, these
governmental departments arc necessarily en- :
braced in the idea, for the Constitution with
ont these active departments can have no Enc
cutivc or any other action; and all that the
seccdcrs from the Charleston Convention ask
cd is, that the party who seeks the control Of
these active departments created by the adnp-
ton OF the Constitution. shall acknowledge,
publicly, AMI plcaGc their efforts to the pro-
lection of tho slave owner to the right of pep
rrty in his slave provided he should cnilgraic
to any of the Territories ftlne United States
in c;,se that properly should be there as>,ilcd
bv the Leyisintio" OF such Territory. The
analogy attempted between the King Of Eng
land and the American colonies, and the Con-
stitution of the United States and the Terri
tories, docs not seem to me to Eold gond. but
would seem to be much more applicable to
srch Mnd or Territory as the crown owned
outside of the colonies. Our Territories are
acknowledged ,Lv all to be the property of the
States, and not colonies of the United States,
and therefore, under the control of their agent,
the general government, which government
was created by the States in the adoption of
the Corsti;ut OF and so wouhl such nni or
Territory o.ts:dc Of the crown be considered
ri t1,,, pf f,n 1sff,,tf
coordinate powers of the colonies ami OF Great
Britain, who acknowledged the King rs their
common Executive. therefore can rot see
the analogy attempted 10y "A Farmer" ain
]. as m1eh-cfP7posseeA Ss-A X Earner" can le tn
..the Unconstitutional inlcrncddlirg Of Con-
press" with the government of the Territories ;
and think the scccdcrs from the Charleston
Convention were so. also; they only claim
that Congress should "medlIc" with them in
n Constitutional rnn, and they hold, if I'LL
dcrs:and their position aright, as | hold, that
as the right of property in slaves existed in
many of the States prior to the adoption OF
the Constitution, and that that right is fully
acknowledged in that instrument, the law ma
king. the law executing and the law cxPonnd-
ing departments of the government, created
and established by the Constitution, should in
:terpose all their powers to prevent these ri ghts
from being impaired by q temporary Terrific
rial Legislature. And how tlIt Executive de-
p,artmeHt or tue Judicial department can act
in this matter, with any efficiency. until after
the Legislative department has acted, confess
myself unatie to see.
For Instance if A. goes into one of the
common Territories of the United States with
his slaves, and after lie gets there majority
of the Legislature of that Territory passes an
act setting AS slaves free, what recourse has
Al According to "a Farmer" this is the at
of q Sovereign, and A. has no recourse but has
to submit to the loss of his property. A pretty
high act this, should say, even Of Sovereign
ty. And yet, if an individual or any humber