Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1861-03-14

defined and limited By the Constitution. Every
citizen has right to take with him INTO tie
Territory any article Of property when Inc
Constitution Of the United States recognizes Is
property. The Constitution Of the Unltcu
States recognizes slaves as property, anu
pledges the Federal Government to protect IL
The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting q
citizen of the United States from taking VITA
him his slaves when he removes to the Ierrlto'
ry in question, 10 reside, is an exercise OF au,
thority over private property when IS io'
warranted by the Constitution: land It was
therefore held that the removal Of bred Scoll'
BY his owner, to Territory north ofthe Mlssou-
ri Compromise line, gave him no title 70 tree
dcm"-19 How. Rep, 395-G.
The Southern States understand this decl-
sion to be all authoritative judicial exposition
Of the Constitution, by the Supreme Federal
Court, under writ issued according to the
"principes and usages" of the common law,
(trespass III Ct drmis,j establishing the rights
of the citizens Of the Several States to carry
their slaves into the common territories and to
hold them there IS property. coupled with the
duty on the part Of the Federal Governments; to
protect that like any other property. The
Northern States deny TINT such was tho decl.
sion of the Supreme Court, and further con.
tend that if such be the decision Of the Court,
it was cX,rajudicial, not being called for 10y
the case, and, therefore, not binding, and that
it is wrong, both upon principle and authority;
ami that the Supreme Court itself must be 'rc-
modelled" in order that n decision may be
rendered establishing the universal freedom OF
the slave in the territories; and, in accordance
with this idea, are the following provisions Of
the platform Of principles adopted by the dom-
nant sectional. organization Of the Northern
States, at Chicago. May II, 1860:
Tth "That the new dogma that the Consti-
tuition, Of its own force carries slavery into
any or all the territories Of the United States
is IA dangerous political heresy at variance with
the explicit provisions Of that instrument it..
self. with contemporancous exposition and
with legislative ard judicial precedent, IS reYo.
utionarv in it's tendency and subverSive Of the
peace and harmony Of the country.
S,h. THAT the normal condition Of NIL terri
tory Of the United States is that of freedom.
That as our Republican fathers, when they had
abolished slavery in all our national territory,
ordained that no person should be deprived
Of his life, liberty or property without due
process of law it becomes our duty, BY legls.
lation, whenever such legislation Is necessary,
to maintain this provision Of the Constitution
ugainst oil attempts tn violate it; and We deny
the authority OF Congress, Of u territorial Le-
gslature or Of any individuals to give legal eI-
istence TO slavery in any territory OF the Uni
ted States"
And it is generally understood to be fact
and will now doubtless be recorded as part OF
the political history Of the country, that the
President and Vice President accepted their
nominations to office, and have besn elevated
to the National Administration, upon the prin-
ciples thus declared.
Now the first section OF the Franklin substi.
tutc. proposed as an amendment to the Const
tuition, simply announces that the status OF the
subject shall not be changed" that neither
Congress nor the Territorial Legislature shall
impair the rights arising from said relation, but
that the same shall he subject TO tho Judicial
c0gni2ance of the Federal Courts, according to
the course Of the common law" and that new
States shall be admitted into the Union, from
this Territory, with or without slavery, Is their
constitution shall prescribe.
We have seen above, that in respect to the
Territory South of SO degrees, SO minutes, all
these provisions nov exist by legal enact ment,
unless indeed something additional be meant
by the expression, according to the course Of!
the common law and it may be added that in
the act of Congress establishing the Territorial
Government Of Utah. which Territory lies
North OF said line, dentically the same pro.
visions are inserted. lDunlop's Laws L. S.
PIP. l2+J, 1850
And we have further seen, that IN respect to
all the Territories Of the United States. the FED
eral courts" having judicial cognlzance OF the
same, have already decided the whole question
in controversy, and decided it, Under the ex.
isting Constitution, in favor oi the rights con-
tended for by the Southern States.
We ere thus brought to the consideration OF
the question, what is meant 10y the expression,
according to the course Of the common law 2
1t is easy 10 see that If it means merely the
modes Of procedure and remedial processes OF
the common law, 1t means nothing, being sur.
plusage; since the modes Of procedure RENE.
dial processes Of the common law, arc IN daily
use in all of the Courts Of the United States,
exercising common law jurisdiction Gas distin.
gushed from equity or admiralty and have
been in daily use under the present Consttu-
ton. ever since the organization of the govern.
nent aud the enactment OF the Judiciary Act
of 1889. In this sense, bred Scott in full &C.
cordance with the course OF common law,
brought his action Of trespass Il ct arms
against his owner, Sanford, in the Circuit Court
OF the United States for the District Of Missouri,
to trv the question US to his freedom. See also,
Spiers vs.. Wilson, 4th Cranch, 99S, an action
of detinus for slaves Ramsay VS.. Lee, 4th
Crcnch 40l,. detinue for 4 slave; Scott VS..
negro London, Sd cranch S2l -trespass to try
right of defendant to his freedom. See Boyce
VS.. Anderson, Pet $50. Action in the case to
recover damages for loss Of slaves. Scott VS..
negro Ben, 9th Cranch, 3-habcas corpus. All
Of which cases, "in the course Of common law"
were decided by Chief Justice Marshall, and
many more recent have occurred in the Or
binary, business of the Federal Courts. And if
this be the sole, exclusive and bona Jtde mean
ing Of the term, it Of course is evident that
the proposed amendment to the Constitution
provides nothing III this respect which IS not
already in acknowledged existence and daily
use under the Constitution as it is, and the laws
passed in pursuance thereof The only differ.
ence would seem to be that By the existing ter
rtorial government Of New Mexico and Utah,
there is well constructed judicial system for
the decision Of the questions Ut issue.
II, on the contrary, however, more Is meant
By the expression than the remedies OF the
common law and the principles also, and
course Of adjudication Of that systems Of juris-
prudence, in regard to the relative legal rights
and duties and the personal relation Of men,
toward each other, are included, then the ex-
preston is but covert security for the cman-
cpalion Of ali the slaves that may now he in
or shat may DC hereafter taken to the territory.
For allhoug il the question were res integra
it nigh: we'll be doubted whether the
common law of England did not recognize and
protect African slavery, it has been generally
conceded since Lord Mansticld's decision in
I'LL, in the case Of James SOMERSET, Vir.
GINA slave. 20 How, St IT., Lofts Rep, i
that slavery is unknown to that system OF
Jurisprudence.
Its evident, therefore, that this first section
Of the Franklin substitute means nothing in
addition to wha; already cxists under the pre-
sent Constitution, and laws of the United
States, to wit: An agreement 10 quarrel as to
the question Of slavery in the territory Of New