The claim of the right to go to the acquired, or conquered territories with their slave property, is insisted on by the South. The attempted exclusion creates strong feelings, as it is regarded as offensive and unjust. If, according to my view of the subject, the conquered or acquired territory, is neither a part of any State, nor a part of the Union, the sovereignty is either in Congress, or in the inhabitants. According to European reasoning the sovereignty is in the Government; according to ours it is in the inhabitants; because with us, power travels upwards from the people, but according to the old reasoning, instead of ascending, it descends. But, if it be _assumed_, that the Constitution follows our flag, even if it be to the Typce(TN) Islands, then it would appear to me, that no citizen can be directly, or indirectly, excluded, on account of his carrying with him, persons _bound to service_, for that is a condition, or relation recognized by the Constitution. Such servants are recognized if not as _property_, for taxation, yet as _persons_ for representation. If the Constitution comes in conflict with the local laws, the latter must give way; this is the necessary consequence it is contended of extending the Constitution to the territories. Laying aside all this fine spun reasoning, there is a common sense ground of justice and equal right, in the claim to equal participation in the property acquired by common means, and even the appearance of the denial, must be offensive. The party thus denied, might exclaim “if it be arsenic, I will have my share.”