Very well?  Isn’t slavery traffic?  It’s buying and selling.  It impresses things that are bought and sold—­cotton.  And slaves are the subject of traffic.  Therefore to regulate it—­keep the slaves out of the territories where they might be bought and sold after getting into the territories, as well as where they might be sold into the territories—­is the regulation of commerce, isn’t it?  Well now, isn’t that better than calling the territories property and subject to the arbitrary rule of Congress as merely inert matter?  If you can rule the territories arbitrarily as to slavery, why not as to anything else?  Suppose we annex Cuba; under this doctrine we could rule Cuba arbitrarily, just as England ruled the Colonies here arbitrarily.  Then take the assumption that Congress has the power to keep slavery out of the territories; just the power, not the express duty; well, it follows that Congress has the power to let it in the territories.  If it can put it in or out of the territories it can leave the territories to put it in or out.  And why isn’t that best?  Right here is the point of my adherence to Douglas.  For I see a growing central power in this country not acting on its lawful authority, but upon its own will, dictated by theories of morality or trade or monopoly.  If this matter is left to the territories it is left to the source of sovereign power and to local interests; if it is controlled by Congress it means an increasing centralization.  What I really mean is that this mere assumption that Congress can deal with the matter in virtue of some vague sovereignty, without pointing out some express power in Congress to do so, leads straight to imperialism.  And thus on the whole, having a regard for the future of America and its liberty, I stand with Douglas.  I have read Webster in his theories that the territories are property, and can therefore be dealt with under the clause which empowers Congress to make all needful laws and regulations for the territory and other property of the United States.  Well, why doesn’t he go farther and let Congress at one stroke emancipate the slaves?  For a slave is certainly property, and if needful rules and regulations as to the negro require his emancipation, why can’t he be emancipated under this clause?  But if territory is property, so is a slave.  And if territory is property, who owns the property?  Why, all the states of course.  And if they own the land and own the slaves too, why can’t they take into their own land, unless they are forbidden to do so by a majority of the states, representatives legislating under some clause of the Constitution which gives them the right to do so?”