Year: 1859

ject of negro slavery in the United States, u,
settled. That is literally true to the full cXter
Of the terms used TO express the fact. All sue
issues are settled, so far as there is anyrightfi
authority in the General Government and tn
State Governments overthe subject. In all til
territorial extent of the United States OF Mort
America. the lawful existence Of negro SLAYER
or its exclusion. in or from the several Sovereig
States, is fact in the transaction, As well a fac
! in law, utterly beyond the reach OF change o
disturbance by any lawtu, exercise of an
earthly power. So the occupation, no less Q
! the aboltioniSt than Of the propagandst i
clean gone. One section can no more law
| fully or honestly strive 10 drive slavery from
| the other section. than this can to put it OIL
that.


Another ISSUE not connected with the eys
tcnce Of negro slavery in the States where i
is. nor with its exclusion from those State
where it is not, but relating to the subject il
the Territories belonging to the United States
has been settled by the authority Of the Su
preme Court Of the United States, to this cx
tent-that negroes in bondage are property.--
In the halls Of legislation and in the forum o
popular suffrage, there is no little diversity O
views on that isSIe There is no doubt tha,
this topic is unavGdably destined to undergo
very copious controversy 4 glance at it is
proposed.


1t is conceded on al. sides that the owner ol
this species Of properly has as good a right
to carry his slave, as Las the owner of any
other property to carry hi., into 4 territory be.
longing to the United Statea Yet it is asked,
Ho,c ran it be protected, et:cpt by tocal Mu'
1t is conceded that it cannot be protected ex.
cept by local law, but We, it doth not appear
that the Territorial Legislature is not bound to
furnish the owner of slaves, equally with the
owner Of other property, the benefits of local
law for the protection Of his property The
Constitution of the United States gives him
the right to carry his slave property there
The legislation of the local or Territorial Lc-
gSlature is 10 less subject to the Constitution
Of the United States, on this subject than on
any other What authority then would that
Legislature have to make an exception of
slaves, in providing Criminal Code for the
protection Of property? Observe. 1t is ad-
mittcd, that whatever jurisdiction the Lcgis-
laturc possesses over other property it has
over slave property-no more, no less" How,
then, | repeat the question-and would that
Senator Douglas, or any wise representative
man would answer the question-how could
that local Legislature in passing a criminal
codc-that Legislature being subject in all
things to the Constitution of the United States
pretcrmt a proper punishment for stealing
ones slave, any more than pretermit proper
punishment for stealing ones property of any
other kind? Such local legislation would. in
plain English be. that he who robS my hens
roost shall be punished for larceny. but he who
steals my slaves. steals not at all, but does q
mcritorous act Such might be-is-;hc
morality of the abolitionist; but such is not
the morality of the Constitution Of the
United States, which is founded in all its
provisions relative to property Of whatever
Kind in the moral law. But, it is asked, If
the people of a territory refuse to pass a slave
code how arc you going to make them do it =
If it cannot be done, it is the fault Of the provi
sions of the Kansas Nebraska act. Until the
South, in its great tenderness for the rights Of
property in slaves. took away from Congress
its supplctory power over the territorial legis-
lature, it was in the power Of the people Of the
States in elccting their representatives to the
general government Of the United States, TO
make the territorial Legislature pass "a slave
code" c. enact law to punish no less for
stealing a slave, than for stealing sheep II
the kanSas-Ncbraska act is so at fault, it is
vicious legislation. and would hcnceforth be
more honorcd in the breach than the obscr,
vance If is so at fault, it doth not yet ap.
pear that the slave owner in the territory has
lost his protection Of his property given him
by the Constitution Of the United States, in
his right of resort to the Supreme Court Of the
United States.


Let us look at this matter, as men of busi-
ness. in a practical point Of view The case
usually put Of stealing ones slave from him in
an organised Territory, to which it is conceded
that one is protected by the Federal ConStitu-
ton in carrying his slaves is not likely to arise.
This sort Of stealing has been carried on from
the slave States, but not in the Territories. -
Let us suppose a case more likely to occur.
Suppose the local Legislature should passa law
to expel negrodom from the Territory, could
not the owners Of the slaves. proposed to be
driven out, appeal to the Legislature Of the
General Government: or, if it was done, or
proposed on the ground that private property
may be paid for and taken for public usc, would
not resort lie to the Supreme Court? As
certainly rs it is explicitly provided by that
Constitution. both that "no person shall bt
deprived of his property, without due process
of law" and that "the judicial power shall
extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising
under this Constitution" &c.


OF such value, land it is Of extent enough,
is the great right of the individual owner
slaves in a territory, the common property 0
all the States, to have his property, constitl
tionally carried there, protected there by tn
local law This right is impaired in the pub
lie opinion, but not impaired IN its still sub
sistinc constitutional strength which is indie
structible by any legislation Of Congress. 1t i
impaired in the public opinion by the attemp
Of Congress in the Kansas Nebraska Act Il
give to the majority in the territory, whei
| forming o constitution for admission into tn
Union, the power to deprive the individual cit
izen Of his right Of property in his slaves.
is 4 right Of property assured to him by tn
Federal Constitution. tits right of propert.
of which he cannot be deprived without hi
individual consent, except the deprivation b
to compel him to pay his debts and othcrwis
execute his contracts. or, only else, after pay
ment for il, for public USES, but not for tn
purpose Of securing its disuse.


Such was the fundamental fault Of the kar
sas.Ncbraska Act of 1S5+i. G., that it a


tempted to take away from its constitutions
sanctum the personal right Of property Of tn
Individual citizens Of the Territory, in hi
slaves, and transfer it to the rule Of the III:
iority. To seem to accomplish that end effe


lively, it was necessary to embrace, also, th'
other fault Of the same Act-that Congre'
should subscribe to the vagary Of nonintervel
ton; in other words, that Congress shall seel
to do what it is not possible for it actually
do: that is, to let the Territory legislate for i
self. This is not as the Kansas Act pretends


is, or. at least, as the popular credulity has !


that the General Government does not inter


venc. 1t is not only not so, but it could no. T. D


So 1t is only as possible as that Iialp no o' u;


mans body could be in health without Tie '''


cuation in it of the hearts blood


These remarks are offered and ys are pfShp,e "ra,n;


by Senator Douglas speech - seW 0rea'',


be hey PaD5@sp are prepared re M and offered not in