The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1860-08-01

in the people, and that no body of men had
any law making power, except such as was
dssgatSd to them By tie people He further
said that Gongfess supervises an the acts o.
the territorial Legislatures We believe thu
to be untrue in point of fact. The precedent
was established by the Kansas Bill, that took
away from Congress the power O 7superFisins
the acts Ct Territorial legislatures. 1t was
done on account, of a belief by the majority Of
the Congress Of the United States in the prop.
~ositions of Mr.. BARLEY laid down in his speech
of 1854, as follows:
When our citizens emigrate toa distant ter
ritory, and there settle and form a community,
the prerogative of popular sovereignty attaches
to this infant state; laws become necessary for
their goyernn emit, fsderiving," in the language
of the declaration of independence, Gtheir just
tpowers from the consentof the governed" Ii
deprived of the legislative authority to control
their own internal and domestic affairs, they
cannot. claim to. be a free people. The hardy
pioneers who populate the new Territories, ia
miliar with the circumstances which surround
them, knowing the wants of their community,
are deeply interested in, and Immediately re-
sponsible for, the consequences of the institu-
tons growing, up: around them. To deny to
SUCH d -p6OplG- luis luCIOSda VI v
e~reignty and control their local municipal laws
by a legislative body thousands Of miles dis
tant having but a Gmited knowledge Of their
wants, while we profess, to believe in the ca
pacity of man for selfgovernment, would be
worse than .mockery. And why give them a
territorial legislature at all, if this right of
popular sovereignty be not conceded3
Now Mr.. BARLEY cannot consistently claim
that his change from this position has been
caused by the bred Scott decision, for that de-
cision does not touch this point. More than
that, if it did, with him it should make no
difference. When he was upon the Supreme
Bench of Ohio he made a decision upon the
Bank tax question which was over ruled by
the Supreme Court of the United States, and
yet Mr.. BARLEY will tell you that he believes
his decision to be right and that of the SUI
preme Court wrong, and you do not in that
case find him stumping the State to show you
that he was wrong and it right That will not
do. There is som other reason for his Jump
ing Jim Grow" q G
But in that speech he. goes still farther and
gets at the point more directly that now causes
the difficulty among the Democracy. IL was
then conceded that the true intent and mean
ing of the Cincinnati platform and Kansas-Nc-
braska bill was to leave the people of the terrific
ry- perfectly. free to form and regulate their
own domestic institutions in their OWL way. 1t
is conceded that the relation of master and slave
is as much a domestic institution, as Mr..
BARLEY said, is that of husband and wife,
guardian and ward, parent and child, In that
speech he says: aas rafJ g sarf ri II
Let me here ask your attention for a short
time, to an inquiry into the constitutional pow
er of Congress to legislate on the subject of
negro slavery in the Territories. If Congress
has the constitutio nali power to prohibit negro
slavery in the Territories, that power would
authorize Congress- to legislate onethe subject,
and in the exercise of their Legislative discre--
ton to pass laws to sanction, protect and regu-a
late slavery. Noao, as "a citizen of the free
states, I ariH aeuer coacede the poaees-
greSseto aathoriSe, Tor an any manner sanction
negro slavery an the Territories. The consti-
tuition contains no grant of any such power
By the 9th section of the first article of the
constitutions, the power is given to Congress to
prohibit the importation of slaves into the
states from abroad after the year1S0S; and by
the third clause of the second section of article
fourth, ~Epcrsons held to service or labor In one
state, escaping into another, are required to
be given up to be returned INN other part
of the constitution is there any reference what
ever to slaves. IF in the absence of any specie
grant of power, Congress can tlegislate ont he
subject of the relation of master and slave, in
the Territories, they can legislate on the sub
ieet of the rights and incidents of all the 9TH
er dom este relations, the rights and incidents
of private property generally, in short, make
all the local municipal laws for the people of
Il m =. I. TyIr4 -o.kF = q
ton will justify such a stretch of authority by
a body with but limited and strictly defined
powers? Ho@ bB -e1st ass 5f1- >
1t is asserted that negro slavery is a. great
evil, a crime injurious in its consequences to
the community at large, and therefore,, Con-
gress should legislate on the subject. and pro-
hibit it. How does this assumption prove
that Congess has the constitutional power to
legislate on the subject? Crime in any of its
forms or grades is an evil in any State or Ter
ritory3 But does this fact confer authority up.
on Congress to enact criminal codes for the peo-
pile of the Territories? Murder is a great
crime, why should Congress trust to the peo-
pie of the Territories to prohibit it? Duel
ling is a crime in many of the States, yet in
some places it is not only tolerated as a Gus
tom, bu: considered highly honorable. Traffic
in ardent spirits, lotteries, houses of in-fame
and very many other practices, which are toll
Grated in some places, are in other places con-
sidered great evils, highly n curious in their
consequences to the community at1arge.-
Why apply the Legislation of Congress to one
subject because it is an evil and not to other
evils even more pernicious and dangerous in
their consequences ? IF the people of the
Territories are capable of selfgovernment and
are entrusted to make their locaiamunicipal
laws generally, why make an exception of the
subject of negro slavery? Does it require
any higher degree of intelligence and moral
worth to legislate on the subjects relating to
the negro than to the white man ? Or upon
what reason is the distinction founded 2 Has
Congress plenary powers TO make all the local
municipal laws for the people Of the Terrific.
lries ? If not, by what provision has the con-
s%titution made the discrimination I? ~
Now it seem to me that this gets directly to
the point of difference among Democrats, and
that the aroumont. there made ia So clear and