The Nevada journal., 1860-06-29

making this complaint, is, that they cannot
go into the Territories of the United States,
carrying ,cith them their ocn peculiar local la;r;
q ta'c 'chieh crsates property IN persons. This,
according to their own statement, is all the
gronnd of Complaint they have. Now, here,
| think gentlemen are unjust towards u.s.
How unjust they are, others will Judge
generations that Will come after us will
judge. 1t will not be conteIded that tins
sort of personal Slavery exists by general
law. 1t exists only by local lar. I Go not
mean to deny the validity of that local law
where it is established; but | say it is, after
all, local law. II is nothing more. And
wherever that local law does not extend,
property IN person does not exist.
Well, sir, what is nov the demand on the
"We will carry our local laws with Us
wherever we go. We Insist that Congress
does us injustice, unless it establishes in the
Territory, in which we wish to go, our own
local law" This demand for one resist,
and shall resist. 1t goes upon the plea that
there is an inequality, unless persons under
this local law, and holding property by au-
thority of that Jaw, can go into new terri
tory, and there establish that local la,v to
the exclusion Of the general lar. Mr. Presi.
dent, it was a ilia4im of the civil law, that
between Slavery and Freedom, Freedom
should always be presumed, and Slavery
must always be proved. If any question
arose as to the status of an individual in
Rome, he was presumed to be free until he
was proven to be slave, because Slavery
is an exception to the general rule. Such,
I suppose, is the general law of mankind
An individual is presumed to be free, until
a law can be produced which creates owns
!. ership in his person. do not dispute the
force and validity of the local law, as have
l. already said but say it is a matter to be
$ any part of the earth. it is to be proved they
!, are not freemen, or else the presumption is
that they are.
Now. our friends seem to think that sn
0 inequality arises from restraining them from
G going into the Territories, unless there be
a law which shall protect their ownership in
persons. The assertion is, that we create an
inequality. Is there nothing to be said on
: the other side in relation to inequality p
i Sir, from the date of this Constitution, and
in the counsels that formed and established
: this Constitution, and suppose in all men $
u judgment since, it is received as settled
e truth, that slave labor and free labor do not
l. exist well together. I have before me q
y declaration Of Mr.. Mason in the Convention
l. that formed the constitution, to that effect.
Mr.. Mason, as is well known. was distin-
l. guished member from Virginia. He says
y that the objection to slave labor is, that it
o puts free white labor in disrepute that it
Is causes labor to be regarded as derogatory
10 to the character of the free white mau, and
n that the free white man despises to work, to
IL use his own expression, where slaves are
III employed. This is matter of great inter
l. est to the free States, if it be true. as to a
y great extent it certainly is, that wherever
III slave labor prevails, free white labor is ex-
i cluded or discouraged. agree that slave
IL labor does not necessarily exclude free labor
y totally. There is free white labor in vir.
y ginia, Tennessee, and other Sta es, wi ere
&c most of the labor is done by slaves. But il
u necessarily loses something of its respecta-
- bility, by the side of, and when associated
with, slave labor. Wherever labor is mainly
VI performed by slaves, it is regarded as de-
grading to freemen. The. freemen of the
y North, therefore, have a deep interest in
- keeping labor free, exclusively free, in the
~ new Territories.
~ But, sir, let us look further into this al
!! legged inequality. There is no pretence thai
~ Southern people may not go into territory
which shall be subject to the Ordinance o.
1887. The only restraint is, that they shall
~ not carry slaves thither, and continue that
&c relation. They say this shuts them alto
- gether out. Why, sir, there can be nothing
Is more inaccurate in point of fact than this
l. statement. understand that one-half the
10 people who settled Illinois are people, OF
r descendants of people, who came from the
ee Southern States. And l suppose that one.
l. third of the people of Ohio are those, oil
ID descendants of those, who emigrated from
s. the South; and venture to say, that in re.
n spect to those two States, they are at thi:
30 day settled by people of Southern origin in
l. as great proportion as they are by people
of Northern origin, according to the gene
D. raj number and proportion of people, South
ID and North. There are as many people from
= the South, in proportion to the whole peo.
pie of the South in those States, as there
he are from the North, in proportion to the
S, whole people of the North. There is, then
is no exclusion of Southern people there il
is only the exclusion of peculiar local law
OF Neither in principle nor in fact is there snJ
IN inequality.
The question now is, whether it is no
: competent to Congress, in the exercise o
fair and just discretion, considering tha
there have been five slaveholding States
Lad lnA 70 l..