And how is it he tells us they can exclude it?
He said it needs "police regulations," and that admits of "unfriendly legislation." Although it is a right established by the Constitution of the United States to take a slave into a Territory of the United States and hold him as property, yet unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly legislation, and, more especially, if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they can practically exclude him.

Now, without meeting this proposition as a matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional obligation.

Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face before me, and let us suppose that he is a member of the Territorial Legislature.

The first thing he will do will be to swear that he will support the Constitution of the United States.
His neighbor by his side in the Territory has slaves and needs Territorial legislation to enable him to enjoy that constitutional right.

Can he withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his favor in the Constitution of the United States, which he has sworn to support?
Can he withhold it without violating his oath?
and more especially, can he pass unfriendly legislation to violate his oath?
Why this is a monstrous sort of talk about the Constitution of the United States! There has never been as outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any respectable man on earth.
I do not believe it is a constitutional right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United States.