first emigrants to the Territory. That Senator had too often and too
fully discussed with me the question of "squatter sovereignty" to be
justified in thus mistaking my opinion. The difference between us is
as wide as that of one who should assert the right to rob from him who
admitted the power. It is true, as I stated it at that time, all
property requires protection from the society in the midst of which it
is held. This necessity does not confer a right to destroy, but rather
creates an obligation to protect. It is true as I stated it, that
slave property peculiarly requires the protection of society, and
would ordinarily become valueless in the midst of a community, which
would seek to seduce the slave front his master, and conceal him
whilst absconding, and as jurors protect each other in any suit which
the master might bring for damages. The laws of the United States,
through the courts of the United States, might enable the master to
recover the slave wherever he could find him. But you all know, in
such a community as I have supposed, that a slave inclined to abscond
would become utterly useless, and that was the extent of the
admission.

The extract on which reliance has been placed was taken from a speech
made at Portland, and both before and after the extract, the language
employed conclusively disproves the construction, which unfriendly
criticism has put upon the detached passage. Immediately preceding it,
the following language was used:

"The Territory being the common property of States, equals in the
Union, and bound by the Constitution which recognizes property in
slaves, it is an abuse of terms to call aggression the migration into
that Territory of one of its joint owners, because carrying with him
any species of property recognized by the Constitution of the United