Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1860-02-10

I
THE SLAVE CODE CONSIDERED.
Before l pass over this will say few
words with regard to tho power that the
Shareholders claim for the protection of slave
property under the Constitution Of the
United States, because that is vital ques-
ton. Gentlemen, with all the inconsistent
cy of the Democratic party in 1852 and
1856, they never thought of this thing,
that slavery went under the Constitution,
aud by virtue thereof into every Territory
per sc. Never was such an expression
made use of, but they all admitted that no
such power existed in or under the Consti-
tuition. Hence, Of course, it was proper to
enact that the people Of a Territory were
free to legislate slavery iu or out of the Ter
ritory. Now, gentlemen, the Democratic
party is placed in this attitude, that they
then knew that under the Constitution and
according to what they now claim to be
the decision of the Supreme Court, that
every stakeholder has right to 60 into the
Territory with his property; or, they de-
ceived the people, to the detriment of the
stakeholder, when they left the matter to be
decided upon by the non-slavehoders,-
What right had the Democratic party to say
that they should confscate the property Of
all the Shareholders of Territory, and
leave their property to the tender mercies
of the squatters who make their way from
Germany, Ireland, China, Massachusetts
and kentucky? Mr. Breckenridge, or
some of your friends, answer me, yes or no,
did you intend when you stood in favor of
popular Sovereignty" or "Squatter Sover-
eighty to coniscate all the property of the
Shareholders of the United States? No
sir You did not think that you had the
right to carry slavery into the Territories.
That is the truth of the matter. In my
opinion, that is what every Democrat be-
Ilcved. We say that the belief was right.
Why! Because all the dicta of all the ju-
rists from time immemorial, from GrOtus
to Mansfield; all jurists known to civiliza-
ton and fame, from the earliest days to
this, declared that slaves were peculiar
property, unlike other property known to
men. What do the best English reports
tell usl Before 1850 this was declared and
by the highest courts of the crown, outside
OF the House of Lords. This was declared
by Lord Mansfield, with this dcta, which |
shall read to you, that l may be understood,
in that case when Curran grew so eloquent,
when be declared that whenever a man
stood upon British soil his chains fell from
him:
"The state of slavery is of such nature
that it is incapable of being introduced on
any reasons, moral or political, but only by
positive law. which preserves its force long
after the reasons, occasion, and time itself
from whence it was created, is erased from
the memory; it is of nature that nothing
can be suffered to support it but positive
law"
That decision has never been questioned
in this country, until this new light Of the
Democratic party fell upon it in the decis-
ion of the Dred Scott case in 1856. l say
all the jurists, all men at home and abroad
who profess the Christian religion, and obey
the equally imperative mandate of progress
sive humanity, concur in the belief that sla-
, very is so contrary to natural law that moth
ing but positive law can support it. Under
our Constitution we adopted the common
law of England, and that was the law Of
this State, and Of others, and it was deci-
ded again and again in the courts Of Louis
lana, and of Kentucky, of Virginia and Of
Tennessee, and in the other States Of the
Union, l believe without exception, that
slavery was local and could only exist by
virtue of positive law, and when q citizer
of Louisiana took his slave to France, &
despotic government, and brought her back
her application to be declared free was car
; ried to the Supreme Court of Louisiana
and it was decided that inasmuch as sht
had been carried into free territory she wa'
free, according to all the dcta upon the sub
iect, "once free and always Free" 1t hal
d always been held that slavery was an insti
n tuition of municipal law and the moment i
was carried beyond the pail Of that law
that moment the rights of humanity anC
n the great reason to which all law appeals
. stepped in and gave freedom; all have de
termined in the same way, every decision
has been in the same direction.
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.
can not dwell upon this matter to g,
all through the able Argument of justice
Curtis, but there is no argument which he doe
not produce, to support the position whicl
+, | have laid down as being correct, save one
: That one is this much talked of and mucl
vaunted fugitive slave law. Let me asl
, you if under the constitution slavery goe
), into the territories of the United State:
= what do you want with fugitive slave law
Answer mo that. Why would you not b
protected in your slave property as muc
in any State of the Union if it is propert
there; and yet you stood in Congress weel
5, after week, and month after month, l mightsa
~ 2, year after year, contending for the rights q
the slave holding community to recover fl
gitive slaves. 1t was all absurdity to quar-
rel about power which you assert is in tn
:, Constitution. You cannot prove that tn
: Constitution gives the power. 1t cannc
be done. 1t is in vain that you struggl
= against the whole authority and commo
sense of ages.
}, You now talk of legislative interventio
by Congress to protect slavery in the teri
n. n tories. What do you want with it if tn
" Constitution docs not give it2 What rigt
= have you to it9 therefore deny on th
part of the Republican party, that there
any such power under the Constitution pc
Sc to carry slavery into the territories of tn
United States. That was not tho doctrin