Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1860-01-24

10 CWUCT IUII WETe
free to legislate slavery In or out of the
TERRITORY. Now, gentlemen, the Demo-
cratic party Is placed in this attitude, that
tbey then knew that under the Constitu
zion and according TO what they now claim
10 be the decision Of the Supreme Court.
INT every STAKEHOLDER has q right to On
! into the Territory with his property, or
deceived the people, to the detriment Of
the STAKEHOLDER, when they left the matter
to be decided upon by the nOn-slavehOld-
Iers. What right had the Democratic party
to say that they should confiseatc the pro-
uerty Of all the Shareholders Of Territory.
| and leave their prOpertytO thetenGermerciSs
of the sgnatteTs, who make their way from
Germany, Ireland, China, Massachusetts,
and kentucky2 Mr.. B,eckinridge, or some
of your friends answer me, yes or no, did
you intend, when YOU stood in favor OF
'sPOpular Sovereignty, OF "Squatter Sow
ereignty,'' TO confiscate all the property of
the Shareholders Of the United States p
| No. Sir. You did not think that you had
the right 10 carry slavery into the Terrific
ries. That is the truth Of the matter. In
NV opinion, that is what every Democrat
believed. We say that the belief was right.
| Whv? Because all the diCta of all the
jurists, from time immemOrial, from Cru
thus to Mansfield; all jurists known to civil
lizatiOn and fame, from the earliest daysto
this, declared that slaves were peculiar
property, unlike other property known to
men. What do the best English reports
tell US? 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 die
Ia, which shall read to you, that I may
be understood, in that case, when Curran
grew so eloquent, when he declared that
| eSn EPfRSSh E0il
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, sfrOm whence 1t was created, is
erased from the memory; II is Of "A nature
that nothing can be suffered to support it
but positive law"
That decision has never been questioned
in this country, until the new light of the
Democratic party fell upon it in the deci-
sion of the Drcd Scott case, in 1856.
say all the jurists, all men at home and
abroad, who profess the christian religion,
and obey the equality imperative mandate
! of progressive humanity, concur in the be-
lief that slavery is so contrary to natural
| law that nothing but positive law can sup
port 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 decided again and again
! in the courts of Louisiana, and of Ken
lucky, of Virginia, and of Tennessee. and
| in the other States of the Union, believe,
without exception, that slavery was local
and could only exist by virtue of positive
| law and when :. citizen of Louisiana took
his slave to France, a despOtic government
and brought her back, her application to
be declared free was carried to the Sn-
preme Court of Louisiana and il was de-
cided that inasmuch as she had been car
| ried into free territory she was free. ac-
cording TO all the dicta upon the subject,
| - once free and always free" 1t has
always been held that slavery was an in
stitution of municipal law, and the mo-
ment it was carried beyond the pail of
that law, that moment the rights of HUI
mainly and the great reason to which all
law appeals, stepped in and gave freedom;
| all have determined in the same way, every
decision has been in the same direction
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.
| can not dwell upon this matter to go
| all through the able argument OF Justice
Curtis, but there is no argument which he
| does not produce, to support the position
which have laid down as being correct,
save one That one is this much talked
]
| Let me ask yOu if under the constitution
slavery goes into the territory of the
United States, what do you want with
| fugitive slave Iaw2 Answer me that
Why would you not be protected in your
slave property as much in any State of the
| Union If il is property there, and yet you
stood in Congress week after week, and
month after month, and might say year
after year, cOntending for the recognition
of the rights OF the slavehOlding cOmmu-
| nifty to recover fugitive slaves. 1t was all
absurGity to quarrel about power which
you assert is in the Constitution. You
cannot prove that the Constitution gives
the power. It cannot be done. 1t is in
vain that you struggle against the whole
authority and common sense of ages.
You now talk OF legislative Intervention
by Congress to protect slavery in the ter
ritOries. What do you want with it 1t the
Constitution does not give lit What
| right have you to It? therefore deny, on
the part Of the Republican party, that
there is any such power under the Consti-
tuition per ss to carry slavery into the ter
ritOries of the United States. That was
not the doctrine of the Democracy of 1852
or 1856, and only after the enunciatIon OF
the Cincinnati platform, and the election Of
James Buchanan, did the Supreme Court
screw themselves up TO the point that they
could say that it was law. Two OF the
ablest and most distinguished jurists de-
claring that it was Obiter dicta, and WAS
NO law. God grant for our freedom,
every mans, white aud black, that you
should shy in your legislative assemblies
and national conventions, that it Is no
law. As 1 live, it IS not the lawl
CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEMOCRATIC CLAM.
See where it leads. Suppose they have,
/ L. he Pf1ht In