Litchfield enquirer., 1860-03-01

g | 3nttaigenfe, anb tbt lFIE'LD, FL CONN, THURSDAY, }.
 Democratic party, and such are their logica
 results. I meet them in their very begin
 nings, for it is there that we shall find the
 starting point of divergence between the two
 great parties upon this subject. I affirm
 that property in man does not and canno,
 exist of natural right. It fills me with un
 speakable modification to be compelled, in
 this enlightened age and this Christian Re.
 public, to go back to demonstrate the pri.
 mary truths of common morality. But the
 necessity exists. The Democratic organiza-
 tion, extending into every town and village
 in the Confederacy, is fast becoming de
 bauched and demoralized in regard to this
 whole matter. Its leaders teach that sla-
 very is right; and the masses everywhere are being gradually led-by course down
 ward in morals and backward in civilization
 to adopt that teaching as true. If this
 doctrine shall become the predominant be-
 lief throughout the greater portion of the
 country, and systems of bondage come to be justified and approved by the masses of the
 people, then l believe that real freedom will
 speedily thereafter disappear from the Re public. IIepeat, therefore, that property
 in slaves does not and cannot exist of natur- al riUhf Thora so of ksop asserting in man such dominion over bis fel- low-man, like that Ybich gave to our race dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, ard over every living thing that moveth upon the face of the earth;" and we are, therefore, left to rest our Judgment upon the just instincts of the human heart, and the honest guidance of an enlightened conscience. And to those I ap- peal. There is not literature of any peo- pie or age which does not depict liberty as better than life, and slavery as worse than death. There is not man in this House who would not sooner lie down in his grave than become bondman; there is not one of us who would not rather see the face of his child upturned to him, dead in it's coffin, than to see that child sold as slave. No promises of sufficient food and decent appar- el and comfortable shelter, of care ia sick ness and support in old age, could change this preference; and if long ages of servitude have produced, in isolated instances. diff fereut choice, the common sense of mankind justly finds in such phenomena more con- elusive proof of the brutalizing influences of bondage. The laws which are made for the security of this species of property afford further evidence that it is based upon wrong It is impossible that any relation, right in itself, should require such utterly repulsive enactments for it's maintenance in 8 civilized society. l have, to some extent, looked in to the statutes and judicial decisions of those where the institution prevails, and I find that they compose merciless, re- terrible machinery for changing man into brute. There is but one step wanting to make the work complete; they have not yet legalized murder. l find judges of the highest tribunals declaring that this fearful system is absolutely necessary for the of property in man; and when they have proved that proposition, they have demonstrated that such property cannot or iginally exist of natural right.
 But it is said that, however this may be, we must take things as they are that pro- perty in man is recognized in the Constitu- tion of the United States as legally right, and entitled to the same legal protection as. other property, wherever that Constitution is the organic law of the community that the Constitution is the organic law of the throughout all the Federal pos sessions !; that this practical recognition of the legal rectitude of slavery is even more potent than would be the universal acknowl- edgment of the right of property in man for, us things actually are in our system of government, wherever the Constitution pre- vails, except where checked and limited by State sovereignty, there is thus .superadded to natural right the guaranty of positive law. might reply to this assumption, that the best expounders of constitutional law in this country have held, with great unsnimi- ty, that the Constitution of the United States does not become part of the Terri torial law until made so by act of Congress, or by the change from the Territorial to the State condition. Butait is unnecessary to follow that line of argument, and it would lead me too far from my purpose.
 My answer to the assumption which l have mentioned is, that the Constitution of the United States nowhere recognizes any natural right of property in man, and now here creates such legal right. The Consti- tuition purposely, carefully, guardedly, ig- nores tue very existence of such property. The slave is represented on this floor as persca, not as chattel; the clause for the rendition of fugitives does not purport to res tore merchandise to it's owner, but debtor to his creditor; representation and direct taxation are to be apportioned among the several States according to an enumeration of persons, not according to an enrolment of property All that the Constitution of the limited States does in reference to this spe- cies of property in the States where it ex- ists is to let it alone; the protection which it enjoys from Federal interference is the pro- tection of State sovereignty, and not of the Constitutions; and it's assurance of the eff ciency of tha: protection is found in the pro
 vision that 'the powers not delegated to the Constitution, nor prohibited. by it to the States, are reserved to the States respect 'ively, or to the people," The Constitution
 nowhere undertakes to designate what shall
 be regarded as property; it does not define
 property at all. That which the local
 sovereignty treats as property within it's ju-
 risdiction, is just so far treated as property
 by tue Constitution; if claimed to be proper
 ty outside of that jurisdiction. it must pos