So far then, as Congress is concerned, the objection is not to anything they have already done, but to what they may do hereafter.  It will surely be admitted that this apprehension of future danger is no good reason for an immediate dissolution of the Union.  It is true that the Territorial legislature of Kansas, on the 23d February, 1860, passed in great haste an act over the veto of the governor declaring that slavery “is and shall be forever prohibited in this Territory.”  Such an act, however, plainly violating the rights of property secured by the Constitution, will surely be declared void by the judiciary whenever it shall be presented in a legal form.

Only three days after my inauguration the Supreme Court of the United States solemnly adjudged that this power did not exist in a Territorial legislature.  Yet such has been the factious temper of the times that the correctness of this decision has been extensively impugned before the people, and the question has given rise to angry political conflicts throughout the country.  Those who have appealed from this judgment of our highest constitutional tribunal to popular assemblies would, if they could, invest a Territorial legislature with power to annul the sacred rights of property.  This power Congress is expressly forbidden by the Federal Constitution to exercise.  Every State legislature in the Union is forbidden by its own constitution to exercise it.  It can not be exercised in any State except by the people in their highest sovereign capacity, when framing or amending their State constitution.  In like manner it can only be exercised by the people of a Territory represented in a convention of delegates for the purpose of framing a constitution preparatory to admission as a State into the Union.  Then, and not until then, are they invested with power to decide the question whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits.  This is an act of sovereign authority, and not of subordinate Territorial legislation.  Were it otherwise, then indeed would the equality of the States in the Territories be destroyed, and the rights of property in slaves would depend not upon the guaranties of the Constitution, but upon the shifting majorities of an irresponsible Territorial legislature.  Such a doctrine, from its intrinsic unsoundness, can not long influence any considerable portion of our people, much less can it afford a good reason for a dissolution of the Union.

The most palpable violations of constitutional duty which have yet been committed consist in the acts of different State legislatures to defeat the execution of the fugitive-slave law.  It ought to be remembered, however, that for these acts neither Congress nor any President can justly be held responsible.  Having been passed in violation of the Federal Constitution, they are therefore null and void.  All the courts, both State and national, before whom the question has arisen have from the beginning declared the fugitive-slave