Year: 1860

munication in the DENocRNr, of yesterday,


is quite noteworthy He says that 'the


Northern man has a right to carr an Abo-


Iition speech in a carpet bag into that Terri


tory which is owned in common by all the
States" and POUNDS it uron that clause in the


Constitution which declares that Congress
shall make no law ablijgug the freedom of
speech or Of the press" If Congress, he
says, cannot obrid-c the freedom Of speech
or Of the press, SO neither can Territorial
Legislature do it. Ills position then is, that
/ man may carry an Abolition speoch--or
| what is known in the South as an iucendiary
/ document-into q Trritoyu but not into
/ STATE, for as he says in another place, "to
carry an incendiary document into a soyer-
! eign State would expose the possessor Of it
/ to the just penalties of municipal law" 1t
/ follows then from his language that q state
/ has right to abridge the freedom Of speech
or of the press, but a Territory has not See
! his remarks in full on that head in lis com
munication According to this logic, he
grants that the municipal TAR is superior to
the authority of Congress, for Congress can
not abridge free speech while State can


Very well, is there no municipal law in the
Territories also? Why cannot the munich
pal law there as well abridge the freedom Of
speech or Of the press? Because says Col.
Lander, Territorial Legislature is mere
creature of Congress and cannot exercise u
power which does not pertain to the Federal


Government We would reply that various


judicial tribunals are but the creatures OF
. Congress- and yet they exercise powers not


pertaining to the Federal Government The


municipal law regulates local matters, and,
when Territorial Legislature is established,


its business is to legislate for the government
of the local affairs OF the Territory With
ont, however, stopping to argue this point
= let Us see what is the effect of such pcsi.


ton as is taken by Col Lander. lie denies
to the Territorial Legislature the right TO
: prevent the Northern man coming in with
I Abolition documents lie denies the same
right to Congress At the same time he j.


for Congressional protection to slavery in


the Territories. Now, 10 is we'll known that


not the least protection to slavery in the


Southern States is the suppression Of incen-


diary documents. Slave property can be no


more secure in q Territory than a state with
out 81 ch suppression. Congressional inter
vention in its behalf, then, would be nullity,
Tor The Aboltionist would still preach that
the institution of slavery had 10 moral OF
4 legal existence in the Territory, and that no
: law ought to be respected which recognized
: slave property. His tongue and his per
y would have full license to stir Up all kinds o
! commotion and to shake the peace Of th'


social organization. Where slavery exists
. no abolitcusm must be allowed to b,


preached, If the property in slaves is expected


to be al all secure. There is no safety for


that kind of property where there is no law


to forbid the ut.erance Of iucoudiary senti-


mems To tie down both the Territorial


Legislature and Congress also in this regard,
so that neither power could interfere to
abridge the free speech Of the Abolitouis'
= would be but a poor protection to slave


property. much safer protection would it


be to allow the Territorial Legislature, in
s the exercise of its municipal authority, and
e the power Of regulating its own domestic
IS concerns, to pass such laws as it might see fit
i regarding slave property as well as every
other species Of property within its jurisdic-
t tion. The Territorial Legislature of New
. Mexico has passed laws Of this character
b and abolitionam is as much under legal ban


there to-day, if we are rightly informed. as


it is in any of the States Of the South On


the other hand, the Territorial Legislature Of
Kansas has passed laws prohibiting slavery


mad prohibiting anything that looks to its


protection The rule seems to be working


well enough in both cases Where the peo-


pie want slavery, the municipal law will


protect it, and where they do not want it the


municipal law will not protect it. But, if
you grant protection TO this kind of property


at ALL let it be full and complete, and not a


halfway business such as it would he, if
you let rebellion be preached to the slaves


or Abolition documents be circulated


The fact is that, whether the constitutional


views of Col. Lander on this head be correct


or Incorrect, the true solution of all the diff


fculties that arise in regard TO this vexed


subject is to be found in Non-Iutcrvenlion


by Congress with the social relations and


municipal regulations of Territorial Gov
erument.