Year: 1860

yantages and lmmunlleS OF the citizens OF the
United States"


1t is then fair and irresistible conclusion,
that the third article of the treaty did include
the whole of the Louisiana purchase; and it is
an undeniable truth, that the citizens of the
several States might so into any of the Terrific
ries carved out OF the acquisition, and carry
with them their property. "The whole Terri
tory" says the Supreme Court of the United
States, "was acquired by the General Govern
ment, as the representative and trustee of the
people Of the United States; and it must there
fore be held in that character for their common
and equal benefit; for it was the people OF the
several States, acting through their agent and
representive, the Federal Government, who,
in fact, acquired the territory in question, and
the Government holds it for their common use,
until it shall be associated with the other States
as member of the Union" And this is in
perfect harmony with our whole system.


The Federal Government is a government Of
States, and not of individuals or masses. Peo
pie make up the States, and States make the
Jonfederacy. Though the Gereral Government
acts on individuals, within and without the
States, it is only in the exercise of powers del
egated by the States and conferred in tie Con-
stitution. ..e...rs. ...


In the first American Congress of IVA, col
onies same together, through their representa-
tives, and bya union of colonies the WI ongs Of
Massachusetts Bay were made the wrongs Of
Pennsylvania and Virginia The revolution
was not social revolution-it was political
1t was a revolution of colonies by name. The
Congress of 1776 was a Congress of colonies,
and the declarations was alive with the one
great truth, 'that these United Colonies are,
and of right ought is be, free and independent
States" They made good their declaration,
aud became, not only free, but sovereign-each
one sovereign and independent within ltselE--
The articles of Confederation were engered in
to by States; the Constitution was formed
by convention of States, each State adopting
the Constitution for ITSELF thus making it, as
far as applicable, "a law unto ITSELF"


All territory is acquired to become State;
but it is likewise acquired for the common ben
eft of the existing States 1t is theirs, and the
Federal Government holds it as their trustee
Consequently, every citizen Of every State has
a share in it. 1t is his, in the first instance,
because he is citizen Of some one Of the Uni
ted States, and he has right to enter into the
Territory clothed with his rights as citizen Of
State. He takes his property with him, and
if he may not do so. then the Territory is not
acquired for the common and equal benefit Of
the several States. Does the Constitution of
the United States, then, carry slavery into the
Territories? No; but under the Constitution,
and by virtue OF it, the Federal Government ac.
quires Territory for the common and equal ben
eft Of the Several States-slaveholdlng and
non slaveholding alike. Being acquired, all
may go into it with their property, Of whatev
er kind, and if they may not there is no equal
ity. That the Constitution recognizes slaves as
pIoperty, is settled beyond u doubt. And
Though it carries slavery nowhere, it sometimes
follows it. A slave held by the laws of Ken
lucky escapes into Ohio, under the Constitution
he is still as much property as he was before.


The law Of Kentucky does not follow him, nor
can it hold him within the State where slavery


is prohibited; but the Constitution can and
does. So there is no escape from the fact that
outside of State limits the Constitution does as
sert the right ofthe master to his slave as prop
erty, and recognizes the relation existing be-
tween them as lawful. 1t is special provision,
admit, but it must be borne in mind that it
is not the special provision which makes him
property. 1t recognizes the right of property
as already existing. When this Territory was
first organized had the citizens Of all the States
the right to come into it, with their families and
their focks? Had the citizens of Missouri the
same right to enter into the enjoyment of their
common estate, as the citizens of Iowa, and
had both the right to bring with them any
property they saw fit? If they might not, by
what law were they restrained or forbidden?-
Surely not by the treaty, for it is sealed to the
protection of property, persons and religion a.
like With it these three are equally sacred
Not by the prohibition of 1920, called, in aw lul
mockery the Missouri Compromise, for that is
repealed, and is now pronounced unconstitution-
al and void. | assume, then, the citizens Of
the States owning slaves had the right 10 come
here with their property, when the Territorial
Government was organized. Some few persons
did come with their slaves, and still fewer re-
mained, for the overruling reason that Nebras-
ka is no place for slave labor. Were the slaves
Of those few set free by the act Of their having
been brought into this Territory? Some were
enticed or stolen away, but no process of law
was ever invoked, or could have been invoked,
to have them pronounced free. -...
This brings US to the question Of power in
the Territorial Legislature. Have we the pow
er to manage Our domestic affairs in our own
way, and exercise the rights of legislation as
free people? | answer, we have, beyond per-
adventure or doubt. But communities, like in
dividuals, have relative duties, as we'll as abso-
lutte and relative rights; we must use our own
right, so that we do not njure or take away
the rights OF others. This is good morals and
good law. The doctrine Of the rights Of the
States lies at the very foundation of our polit-
ica fabric To legislate against the rights Of
any one State is to strike mortal blow at the
rights Of ALL


In this attempt to prohibit slavery by an act
Of the Territorial Assembly, am constrained
to say you have overlooked the true intent and
meaning Of the organic law.


| 1t should be remembered that the restrictive
line against slavery, known as 36 deg. 30 min.
was designed not only to control the Terrific.
res north of that line, but to exclude slavery
forever from all States to be formed between
that line and the forty-ninth degree; thus ma.
king the act of Congress to operate on States
as wellas Territories. ! say this was the de-


sign in the act of 1920, and Mr.. Clayton proved
it in the Senate. Indeed, the great object was
"to have no more slave States"


| At The organization of Kansas and Nebras-
| ka, the Missouri restriction was botted out,
and declared imperative and void; ''it being the
true intent and meaning of this act not to leg
isate slavery into any Territory or State or ex-
cude it therefrom. but to leave the people
thereof perfectly tree TO form and regulate their
domestic institutions in their own way subject
only to the Constitution of the United States"
This was the triumph Of popular sovereignty
over Congressional restriction: The right OF the
people to form and regulate their domestic in
stltutions in their own way, subject only to the
Constitution of the United States. Surely you
cannot think that this meant the Territorial
Legislature created in the same law and by the
same Congress. Is that popular sovereignty?
Let us look. "And be it further enacted, that
| the lanislatiya nnwar and authority Of said Tar