Year: 1859

sisl that it is the duty Of the Judiciary


to maintain it there without any law on


the subject. We do not charge hun


with any intention to be unfair; but we


assert that he has in fact done wrong to


probably nineteen-twentieths Of the par


ty, 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 OF said SO. But the Con-


stitution regards as sacred and inviola-


Bile all the rights which a citizen may


legally acquire in a State. If man


acquires property of any kind in State,


and goes with it into a Territory, he is


not for that reason to be stripped OF it.


Our simple and plain proposition is,
that the legal owner Of slave or any
other chattel may so with it into Fed
eral Territory without torlelting his
title.


Who denies the truth of this, and up
on what ground can it be controverted?
The reasons which support it are very
obvious and very conclusive. As a ju-


rist and statesman, Mr. Douglas ought


to be familiar with them, ahd there was


q time when he was supposed to under


stand them very well. We will briefly


give him few Of them:


l. It is an automatic principle Of pub


lie law that a right of property, a pri-


vate relation, condition, or status, law
fully existing in one State or country is
not changed by the mere removal of the
parties to another country, unless the
law of that other country be in direct
conflict with it. For instance: A mar
riagc legally solemnized in France is
binding III America; children born in
Germany are legitimate here if they are
legitimate there; and q 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
stotus of a negro carried from one part
Of the United States to another the
question Of his freedom Or servitude de-
pends on the law of the place where he
came from, and depends on that alone,
if there be no conflicting law at the
place. whore he goes Or is taken. The
Federal Constitution, therefore, recog-
nizes slavery as a legal condition whcr-
ever the local governments have chosen
to let it stand unabolished, and regards
it as Illegal wherever the laws OF the
place have forbidden it. A slave being
property in Virginia, remains property;
and his master has all the rights of a
Virginia master wherever he may go, SO
that he do not go to any place where the
local law comes in conflict with his right.
1t will not be pretended that the Con-
stitution itself furnishes to the Terrific
ries conflicting law 1t contains 10
provision that can be tortured into any
semblance Of a prohibition.


=. The dispute on the question wheth-
er slavery or freedom is local or gencr-
al, is a 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 vir-
tue of some local regulation, and tho
slave owes service for similar reason.
The Constitution and laws Of the United
States simply declare that everything
done in the premises by the State gov
ernment is right, and they shall be pro-
tected in carrying it out. But flee me-
9roes and slaves may both find them
selves outside of any State jurisdiction,
and in a Territory where no regulation
has yet been made on the subject. There
the Constitution is equally impartial
It neither frees the slave nor enslaves
the freeman. ltrequires both to remain
III statu quo until the status already i'm
pressed upon them by the law Of their
previous donicil shall be changed by
some competent local authority. What
is competent local authority in Terri
tory will be elsewhere considered.


8. The Federal Constitution carefully
guards the rights Of private property
against the Federal Government itself.
by declaring that it shall not be taken
for public use without compensation, nor
without due process Of law. Slaves are
private property, and every man who
has taken an oath of fidelity to the Con-
stitution is religiously, morally, and po-
itically bound to regard them as such.
Does anybody suppose that Constitu-
ton which acknowledges the sacredness
If private property so fully would wan
only destroy that right, not by any
words that are found in it, but by mere
from its general principles
It might as well be asserted that the
general principles Of the Constitution
gave>Lane and Montgomery license to
steal horses in the valley of the Usage. -


4. The Supreme Court Of the Up;s>su
States has decided the questia~~ Altel