Year: 1859

l0r themselves.


The Constitution certainly does not
establish slavery in the Territories, nor any
where else. Nobody in this country ever
thought or said So But the Constitution
regards as sacred aud inViolable all the
rights which a citizen may legally acquire
10 State. II a man acquires property Of
any kind in a State, and goes with it into
Territory, be is not for that reason to be
stripped Of it Our simple and plain prop
osition is, that the legal owner Of slave
or other chattel may go with It into Fed
eral Territory without forfeiting bis title.


Who denies the truth Of this, and upon
what ground can it be controverted The
reasons which support it are very obvious
and very conclusive. As a jurist and a
Statesman, Mr.. Douglas ought to be famil-
lar with them, aud there was a time when
he was supposed to understand them very
we'll We briefly give him few Of them I:


!. 1t is an automatic principle Of pub
lie law that a right of property, private
relation, condition, or Status, lawful exist
ing in one state or country, is not changed
by the mere removal Of the parties to an
other 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 If they
are legitimate there; and a merchant who
buys goods in New York according to the
laws Of that State may carry them to Illi-
nois and bold them there under bis contract
II is precisely so with the status Of negro
carried from one part Of the United States
TO another; the question Of his freedom or
servitude depends on the law Of the place
where he came from, aud depends on that
alone, If there be no conflicting law at the
place TO which he goes or is taken. The
Federal Constitution, therefore, recognises
slavery as a legal condition wherever the
local governments have chosen to let it
stand unabolished, and regards it as illegal
wherever the laws Of the place have for
hidden it, A slave being property in Vir-
glnia, remains property; and his master has
all the rights Of Virginia master WhereV-
er ho may go, so that he go not to 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 conflicting law. It contains
no provision that can be tortured into any
semblanee Of prohibition.


2. The dispute on the question whether
slavery or freedom is local or general, is q
mere war Of words. The black race in this
country is neither bond nor free by virtue
Of any general law. That portion Of it
which is free is free by virtue Of some local
regulation, and the slaves owe service for
similar reason. The Constitution and laws
Of the United States simply declare that
everything done in the premises by the
State governments is right, aud they shall
be protected in carrying it out Bot free
negroes and slaves may both end them
selves outside Of any State jurisdiction, and
in 4 Territory where no regulation has yet
been made on the subject There the Con
stitution is equally impartial 1t neither
frees the slaves nor enslaVes the freeman
Il requires both to remain 10 statu quo un-
til the status already impressed upon them
by the law Of their previous domicil shall
be changed by some competent local au-
thority. What is competent local authori-
ty in a Territory will be elsewhere consid-
cred.


3. The Federal Constitution carefully
guards the rights Of private property
against the Federal Government itself, by
declaring that 1t shall not be taken for
public use without compensation, nor with
out due process Of law. Slaves are private
property, and every man who has taken an
oath Of fidelity 70 the Constitution is relig-
iously, morally and politically bound to re-
gard them as such. Does anybody sup
pose that O Constitution which acknoWl-
edges the sacredness Of private property so
fully would wantOnly destroy that right,
not by any words that are found in it, bat
by mere implication from its general prin-
eiples 1t might as we'll be asserted that
the general principles Of the Constitution
gave Lane and Montgomery a license to
steal horses in the valley Of the Usage.


4. The Supreme Court Of the United
States has decided the question. After
solemn argument and careful consideration,
that august tribunal has announced its
opinion to be that a Shareholder, by going
into a Federal Territory, does not lose the
title he had to his negro 10 the State from
which he came. In former times, a ques-
tion of constitutional law once decided by
the Supreme Court was regarded as settled
by all, except that little band Of ribald in
fdels, who meet periodically at Boston to
blaspheme religion and plot rebellion
against the laws Of the country. Che lead.
ers Of the so-called Republican party have
lately been treading close on the heels OIL
their abolition brethren; but it is devoutly
To be hoped that Mr.. Douglas has no inten.
ton to follow their example. In case be
is elected President, he must see the laws
faithfully executed. Does be think he eau
keep that oath by lighting the judiciary


s. The legislative history Of the conn-
try shows that ell the great statesmen Of
former times entertained the same opinion,
and held it so firmly that they did not even
think Of any other 1t was universally to-
ken for granted that a slave remained a
slave, and freeman a freeman, in the new