Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1861-02-06

hAgN NAAAAl y II Mab uN G1AdulEhneQ DIV any
LEGAL or municipal enact, ,nts, but every man
who could afford TO buy and keep a slave, had
an undoubted rightto DO so. Nobody would
have thought Of questioning that right. That
slaves were property, in the broadest sense,
none held more firmly than the people Of New
England, for they were the heaviesf dealers in
them, not for their own use, but for SAFE.
They made, out Of the traffic, the colossal
fortunes their anti-slavery descendants now
| enjoy. At their instance the provision was
inserted in the Constitution, that this money
making business should not be prohibited for
twenty years. On the 18th Of October, 1923,
the Supreme Court Of Massachusetts,, in the
case of Comwth vs.. Griffith 2 Pick. Repts. Il,
the distinguished Chief Justice Parker, deliver
iag the opinion Of the Court, said, ait is diff
cult in a case like tais for persons who are not
inhabitants Of slaveholding States, to prevent
prejudice from having too strong an effect up
on their minds We must reflect, however.
that the Constitution was made with some
States in which it would not occur to the
mind to inquire whether slaves were property.
It was a very serious question, when they
came to make the Constitution, what should
be done with the slaves. They might have
kept aloof from the Constitution. That in
strument was a compromise. Il was a COM
pact by which all are bound. We are to con-
/ slider, then, what was the intention OF the
! N2AaENANAA4H a "a VI a. nEAG A"k4 g4h
Of delicacy, so as not to offend some in the
convention, whose feelings were abhorrent to
slavery but Ws then entered info an GgrssHsHt
that sldUss should be considered as property.
Slavery would still have continued if no Con-
s]titution had been made"
How could it have so continued? Under any
municipal law? Certainly not, but as part Of
the unwrittsn law OF the lsnd. Municipal
laws were made to restrict and abolish it.
! None u-ara rauuired r. establish r. -
The argument, then, falls to the ground.
The assertion that "the doctrine that slavery
I is a municipal institution was the common
faith Of the country when the Constitution was
adopted, and when the Southern States entered
the Union, as it was held By our Presidents
and statesmen until the time Of Mr.. Ca houn,
with few, if any, exceptions, is utterly mega
atived by the whole political history Of the
country. No fact is adduced in support Of the
allegation, nor can it be sustained.
No statute was ever passed, ia any Of the
Sta'es which formed the Constitution, to es-
tablish slavery. Many were passed, in every
State, to regulate it, Ne sutoT ultra crepiiam !
Wonld that eur excellent friend had remem-
bered this maxim. The desolation which has
fallen upon our country has, to a great extent,
been brought about by the interference OF the
clergy in political affairs. It is sad to see the
Presbyterian church, in the person Of one Of
her greatest representatives, committing the
same grave error.
The great ability of the paper, its extreme
fairness as to most Of the questions discussed /,
and its apparent and really intended impar-
TALLY upon the main point, render it all the
more dangerous.
The writer certainly cannot have studied
the decision Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States in the case Of bred Scott, or be
would not have permitted it to be entered from
bis arguments that the territorial question is
an open one. He surely Acknowledges the
binding for,e OF the decisions Of that tribd-
nal, and depreeates the idea Of undertaking.,
nullifYing, or treating them with contempt.
And yet that opinion contains the following
distinct determinations:
"The territory, beiRg a part Of the United
States, the Government and the citizen both
enter it under the authority Of the Constitu-
tion, with their respective rights defined and
marked out and the Federal Government can
exercise no power on his person or property
beyond what that instrument c%onfers, nor law
fully deny any right which it has reserved"
Al act Of Congress which depriVes
a citizen OF the United States OF his liberty
or property, merely because he came himself,
OF brought bis property into a Territory Of the
United States, and had committed no ofsnse
against the laws, could hardly be dignifed
with the name ofdae process Of law" .
at seems, however, TO be supposed that
there is a difference between property in a
slave and other property, and that different
rules may be applied 10 it in expounding the
Constitution Of the United Sates.o .
"Now, as we have already said in an earlier
part Of this opinion, upon a different point, the
right Of property in a slave is distinctly ana
expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The
right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article Of
merchandise and property, was guaranteed to
the citizens of the United States, in every
State that might desire it, for twenty years.
And the government, in express terms, is
pledged to protect it in all future time, il the
slave ESCAPES from his owner. This is done in
plain words-too plain to be Misunderstood.
Aud no word can be found in the Cons tuition
which gives Congress a greater power over
slave property, or which e~Ititles property Of
that kind to less protection than property OF
any other description
The effect Of the decision, agreed 70 BY
seven Of the nine judges Of that court, is that
the STAKEHOLDER has a right to take his slaves
( into any Of the Territories, to hold them there,
and to have them protected, just like any other
property.
And lest the idea should be insis ed Oh, to
which go much currency has been given, that
the questions decided were not properly before
the court, It is expressly decided BY the Judges
who coEcurred in the judgment, that the mat
I NIAE AAAN4 EA kA1FAANN NA0 klEAs
and that they were legally bound 10 decide
them. It is said by Justice Wayne, in the
opinion given by him, that nothing belong
ing to he case has been left undecided, nor
has any point been decided which was not
called for by the record, or which was not
necessary for the judicial exposition Of it /"
and again, The case involves private rights
Of great value, and constitutional principles
of the highest importance, about which there
had become such a difference Of opinion, that
the peace and harmony OF the country re-
quired the settlement Of them BY judicial de-
cision.o
Taey ought to be considered settled, and the
Princeton ReBiesO ought not to have breathed
a doubt OF it. The church, il it speaks at all,
should give no eoqntenance 20 INSTRUMENTATION.
The writer is quite as unfortunate 10 the
view be takes Of the equality the South de-
mands.
The meaning Of the southern people, when
they use this term, is well expressed by Judge
Catron, in the decision Of the Drei Scott case,
when be saysi 'rhe act Of 1920, known as
the Missouri compromise, violates the most
leading feature Of the Constitution, a feature
on which the Union depends, and which Sc
cures to the respective States and their citi-
zens an entire EQUALITY Of rights, Principies
and immEatties."
This is all the South have ever demanded,
AAA AAhANHNA NAAA NNAAAA W AAN1 NAAA EAIaAANN
will satisfy them, There may be eTtremista
who would now demand more, but theirs are
not the views Of the people.
The article 10 the ReUieg represents the
claims Of tle South in these words: "The
thing claimed is this, viz; that the slave inter-
est should have equal poll ical control with all
other interests of the country combined. This
Is what is meant BY equality. Less than this
Il declared to be inconsistent with their safety
and honpr. This ls the idea which, BY the
teaching Of Mr.. Calhoun, has taken thorough
possession Of the minds Of a certain class OF
southern politicians.0
Nowssto say that the southern people make
any such claim as this is prepssterous, and.
however unin' entionally, does Them gross in
justice. What they claim is, equality Of rights,
immunities and privileges. The difficulty is.
to know how such equality is to be secured,
and it Is this which exercised the mind OF AR.
Calhoun in bis day. Il the idea attributed to
bin had possessed the mind OF that great states
man, be would not have opposed, as be did
with all the energy be had, the annexation Of
Texas. No more devoted Unien man eyer
lived, as the writer Of this has the best reason
70 knoW. His whole soul was in the preser-
walton q The glorious fabric. He foresaw
the dangers which menaced Il. With alnost
prophsbe vision he bebeld this tine Of trouble
He saw The South gradually but surely losing
their equality Of political power-thsir aoil-
ity to protect themselves. He saw lhe North
Increasing in might, in territory and in
hostility to the institution Of slavery. and
bis object and the intense desire Of his heart,
to bis dying day, was to discover some mode
Of averting the eaiamities Rhich must neces-
sarily result from thu condition Of thiags. In
his view, the sewer Of secession was the
grand conservative principle OF our government
-the most important 81 the reserved rights Of
the States. The doctrine folly uaderstoqd and
acknowledged, thata State might, (f forged to
that alteFnatlYs BIZ the oppression OF a ma
joritY,1 By repeating thb orlisaase Under
which she adopted the Constitution, peeeeably
withdraw from the coEfederacy, was sufficient
70 secure the perpetuseon IF our Union. The
knowledge that a step like that might lawfully
be taken, would prevent sach action on the
part Of States OF people, as would drive any
Sic er state 70 that extremity. Il would pre-
vent, 200, in case q State vsfs oppressed be-
peHd sndurance, that which a az things hse
most dreaded. civil war. TIE idea that az
State or States would, Of choies, sna for -