Year: 1859

We will lnvert the order ia which he has
discussed the subject, and endeavor to show


l. mat he has not correctly stated the doc
lFine held by his opponents; aud


= mat ms own opinions, as given by him
self, are altogether unsound.


l. lie says that certain portion OF the Dem.
ocfatic party believe, or profess to believe, that
the Constitution establishes SidUery in the Ter
TItores, and insist that it is the duty of the iu-
dietary to maintain it there Without any Lap on
the subject We do not charge him with any
intention TO be unfair but we assert, that he
has IN TACT done wrong 10, probably, nineteen
tWentleths OF the party, by attempting TO put
them on grounds which they never chose for
themselves.


The Constitution certainly does not establish
slavery in the Territories, nor anywhere else.
Nobody IN this country ever thought or said SO.
But the Constitution regards as sacred and invI-
ola5le all the rights which citizen may legally
acquire IN State. II man acquires proper
ly OF any kind in State, and goes with it into
territory, he is not for that reason to be strip
ped OF It. Our simple and plain proposition is,
that the legal owner of 4 slave or other chattel
may go with tinto Federal Territory without
torteitng his title.





ground can it be coutrovertnd? ? The reasons
which support it are very obvious and very con-
elusive. As iurISt and a statesman, Mr. Dou-
glas ought to be familiar with them, and there
was time when he was supposed to understand
them very we'll We will briefly give him a
! few Of them.


1t is an automatic principle of public law,
that right OF property, private relation, con-
dItion or status, lawfully existing in one State
or country, is not changed by the mere remo-
val OF the parties to another country unless the
law OF that other country be in direct conflict
with it. For instance A marriage legally
solemnized in France is binding in America
children born in Germany are Legitimate here
| II they are legitimate there and a merchant
| who buys goods in New York according TO the
laws OF that State may carry them to Illinois
and hold them there under his contract It is
! precisely SO with the status of negro carried
from one part ofthe United States to another
The question of his freedom or servitude depends
on the law OF the place where he came from,
and depends on that alone, if there be no con-
flctlng law at the place to which he goes or is
taken. The Federal constitution therefore re-
cognlzes slavery as a legal condition wherever
the lnrai gDgarnraa'>'~ i,n'-~- r. - iaf =



wherever the laws OF the place have forbidden
it. slave being property in Virginia, re-
mains property and his master has all the
rights ofa Virginia master wherever he may 60
So that he 90 not 10 any place, where the local Law
comes in conflict with his right. 1t will not be
pretended that the Constitution itself furnishes
TO the Territories a conVicting law. It con-
talns no provision that can be tortured into any
semblance Of prohibition.


| 2. The dispute on the question whether sla-
very or freedom is local or general, is a mere
war of words. The black race in this country
Is neither bond nor free by virtue Of any gene
raj law. That portion OF it which is free is SO by
virtue OF some local regulation, and the slave
owes service for a similar reason. The Con-
Stitution and laws of the United States simply
declare that everything done in the premises by
the State governments is right, and they shall
be protected in carrying it out. But free ne
groeS and slaves may both find themselves out
side OF any State jurisdiction, and in a Terri
tory where no regulation has yet been made on
the subject. There the Constitution is equally
impartial. 1t neither frees the slave nor en-
slaves the freeman. 1t requires both to remain
in statu quo until the status already impressed
upon them by the law Of their previous domcil
shall be changed by some competent local au-
thority. What is competent local authority In
Territory will be elsewhere considered.
3. The Federal Constitution carefully guards
the rights of private property against the Fed
eral Government itself, by declaring that it
shall not be taken for public use without COM
penSatlon, nor without due profess OF law
Slaves are private property, and every man
who has taken an oath OF fidelity 10 the const-
tuition is relIgIously, morally and politically
bound to regard them as such. Does anybody
suppose that q Constitution which aCknoWl-
edges the sacredness Of private property so full
ly would wantonly destroy that right, not by
any words that are found in it, but by mere
implication from It's general principles 1t
might as well be asserted that the general prin-
ciples Of the Constitution gave Lane and Mont
gomery a license to steal horses in the valley oi
: the Usage.


4. The Supreme Court of the United States
has decided the question. Alter solemn aTgu-
ment and careful consideration, that august trI-
E bunal has announced its opinion TO be that
STAKEHOLDER, by going into a Federal Territory
does not lose the title he had to his negro in The


State from which he came. In former times,
S question of constitutional law once decided by
2 the Supreme Court was regarded as settled by
e all, except that little band of rloalt Infdels
: who meet periodically at Boston to blasphem
/, the religion and plot rebellion against the law


Of the country. The leaders of the so-calle'
If Republican party have lately beea treading
Y close OK the heels OF their abolition brethren
n but it is devoutly to be hoped that Mr.. Doug
;e las has no intention 10 follow their example,
J. In case he is elected President, he must see III
Or laws faithfully executed. Does he think b
r can keep that oath BY fighting the judicia
i'd ry?


Of Z The lnninlni,ua hisfnru of the cnnntr