The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1861-03-13

foreign nations NAV treat our fugitive sisves,
the States OF this Con 'ederacy are bound TO
treat them as property. and to give them back
to their lawful owners. How idle, therefore,
to plead principle Of international llw. which.
in reference to the relations Of the States Of
this Union, is formally abolished Slavery is
clearly part Of the municipal law Of the Unit
ed States; and the whole argument from the 10.
cal character OF the insti ution, falls to the
ground. Slaveholding and non -slavehnlding
are both equally sectional, aud both equally ma.
tional.
(2) As 20 the allegation that the Cohsttion
no where recognized the right Of property in
slaves, that is equally unfounded. We shall
say nothing here Of the decision of the Supreme
Court, though that, one would think, is enti-
tied to some consideration ITSELF and if there Is
! force in logic, we shall be able TO make it ap-
! pear that the right is not only recognized, but
I recognized with philosophical accuracy and
precision that seize only on tho essential. and
omit the variable and accidental, The subject,
in the language Of the Constitution, "a trans
ferred from the technicalities Of law 10 the
higher sphere OF abstract and speculative NOR.
atty Morally considered, to what class does
the slave belong? To the class of persons held
to service. The two ideas that he is person,
and as person. held to service, constitute tho
generic conception Of slavery. How Is his OBJ
legation to service fundamentally different from
that ofother laborers? By this, as one essen.
tial circumstance, that it is independent OF the
formalities of contract. Add the circumstance
that il is for life, and you have q complete con.
cepton of the thing You have the very def.
milton, almost in bis own words, which cele.
brated English philosopher gives Of slavery.
II define slavery" says DR.. Paley, ITO be an
obligation to labor for the benefit OF the master,
without the contract or consent Of the ser.
vant"a
Now, is such an obligation recognized in the
Constitution of the United States? Are there
persons spoken Of in it, who are held to ser
vice by a claim so sacred that the Government
allows them, however anxious they may be to
do SO, to dissolve it neither by stratagem nor
force? Ifthey run away, they tntist be remand
ed to those who are entitled to their labor,
even If they escape to territory whose local
laws would otherwise protect them. II they
appeal to force, the whole power OF the Union
may be brought to crush them. Can any man
say that the Constitution does not here recog-
nize right to the labor and service OF men, OF
persons, which springs from no stipulations of
their own, is entirely independent Of their own
consent. and which can never be annuled BY
their part? That is slauery--it is the very es.
sence and core of the institution. That upon
which the right of property terminates in the
slave. is his service or labor. II is not his soul
not his moral and intellectuai--it is his labor.
This is the thing which is bought and sold in
the market and it is in consequence Of the
right to regulate, control and direct this, that
the person comes under an obligation to obey.
The idea OF a right on one side, and duty on
the other. show that the slave in this relation,
is as truly person as his master. The Con-
stitution, therefore, does recognize and protect
slavery, in every moral and ethical feature of
it. The thing which, under that name, has
commanded the appreciation of mankind Is the
very thing among others analogous to t. in-
cluded in the third clause ofthe second section
Of the fourth chapter Of the Constitution. We
see no wav OF getting round this argument
1t is idle to say that slave are not referred to
it is equally idle to say that tie right TO their
labor is not respected and guarded. Lot this
right be acknowledged in the territories, aud
we are not disposed to wiring changes upon
words. Let the Government permit the South
to carry her persons held to service, without
their consent, into the territories, and let tho
right to their labor be prott cted, and there
would be no quarrel about slavery 1t is uu.
WOTLHy VI StaIeSiHeH, III d Watt6F OF t0lS SORT,
to quibble about legal technicalities That the
law ofslavehold,ng States asses slaves among
chattels, and speaks of them as marketable
commodities does not imply that, morally and
ethically. they are not persons, nor that the
property is in them, rather than in their toll
These same laws treat them in other respects
as persons, and speak of their service as obe-
disnce or duty. The meaning of chattls is rel.
ative, and is to be restricted to the relation
which it implies.
We are happy to find that the Supreme
Court Of the United States has iully confirmed
the Interpretation which we have given to this
clause of the Constitution. In the case OF
Prigg Us. the Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania
it was asserted by every Judge upon the Bench,
that the design OF the provision was ito the
citizens of the slaveholding States the complete
right and title OF ownership In their slaves, as
property, in every State in the Union into
which they might escape from the State where
they we're held in servitude." These are the
very words Of Mr.. Justice Story, in delivering
the opinion of the Court. He went on to add:
"The full recognition OF this right and title was
indispensable to the security OF this species of
property in all the slaveholding States; and,
indeed was so vital to the preservation Of the
domestic interests and institutions that il can
not be doubted that 1t constituted o tundamen-
tai article, without the adoption of which the
Union could not have been formed."e ave
have said that the clause contains positive and
unqualified recognition Of the right OF the own
er in the slave."d Chief Justice Tarney held:
that, "by the national compact, this right Of
property is recognized as an existing right in
every State in the Union "e Judge Thompson
said :the Constitution "affirms in the most un-
equvocal manner the right of the master to
the service Of his slave, according to the laws
of the State under which he is held.nf Judge
Wayne affirmed that oil the Judges concurred
Sin the declaration that the provision In the
Constitution was compromise between the
saveholding and the non. slaveholding States.
to secure to the former fugitive slaves as prop
perty."g "The param Jant authority Of this
clause in the constitution says j Judge Danisl.
ITO garanee to the owner the right ofproperty
in his slave and the absolute nullity OF any
Safe power, directly or Indirectly openly or
covertly, aimed to impair that right, or 10 OBJ
struct its enj pyment, admit, nay, insist upon
TO the full est extent."h
linow, the Constitution recognizes slaves as
property, that is, as persons to whose labor and
service the service the master has right, then.
upon what principle shall Congress undertake.
to abolish this right upon q Territory, ofwhich
it Is The local LegIs.ature?. 1t will not permit
the slave TO cancel it, because the service Is due.
Upon what ground can itself interpose betweau
man and his dues? Congress is as much tha
agent of the slaveholding as it is the lon-
slaveholding states, and as equally bound 10
protect both, and to hold the scales az i,,st;ca