_eo nomine_, is made a part of the
Constitution, so far as it affects the relations of master and slave.
Now, what is the common law? Who is there upon this floor that will
tell me what common law is meant by this section? With all my respect
for the thorough knowledge and the legal acquirements of the honorable
Senator from Kentucky, I know he cannot tell me what common law is
meant by that first section. We know, as jurists, what is meant by the
term common law, for it is a technical term. The common law is the law
of England, the unwritten law of England, the _lex non scripta_. That
is the common law in its legal acceptation. Is it, then, the law of
England that is made a part of the Constitution, and to which the
master is remitted for the security of his rights between him and his
servant? Will any gentleman tell me that it is the common law of
England that is to be made a part of the Constitution to which we are
to be remitted? If it is the common law of England, is it the common
law of England as it stands at this day, on the first of March, 1861?

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--If my friend will allow me, I take it that that term
applies only to the remedies known to the common law. The laws of the
Territories are to be enforced, and the remedies under them are to be
administered according to common law. The master is to have his rights
according to the law of the Territory, and to secure those rights
according to the common law.

Mr. MASON:--The language of the section is, that neither Congress nor
the Territorial Legislature shall interfere to impair the rights
arising from this relation of master and slave; "but the same"--that
is, this relation between master and slave--"shall be subject to
judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of
the common law."

Now, the honorable Senator says that means only the remedy of the
common law; that you are to take the law of the Territory, whatever it
may be, and administer that, by confining it to the remedies known to
the common law. I deny the interpretation. The Senator may be right,
or I may be right. I say the text does not warrant the interpretation.
The text refers to the rights in the relation of master and slave, and
says they (those rights) shall be the subject of judicial cognizance,
according to the course of common law. Now, I ask, what is the common
law that is thus made a part of the Constitution for the subject to
which it refers? Is it the