The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1850-08-06

to abstain from interfering afterwards Now,
sir, thisais delusive The courts might decide
that, in the. absence of prohibiting legislation,
these rights were recognized by the Constitu-
ton, and yet, at the same time, decide that
Congress could abolish slavery in these terrific
eries. And if Congress have such power, the
exercise Of it when an occasion arose, would
not be; bad faith towards the court or any dis
respect to its judgment as to what was the true
construction of the Constitution. By permit
ting this question therefore, to go to the courts,
the North came under no obligations to let us
alone hereafter, unless Congress so provide ex-
pressly. We know indeed, of a certainty, that
<the federal courts would decide in favor of the
power of Congress to abolish slavery in the
territories, supposing it existed there; aud de-
cision- that it did exist there, could not destroy
This power in Congress. believe that the
court has been in error, but it will be governed
by itsown decisions, and not by my opinions.
IF the idea that slavery is recognized by the
Constitution 10 the territories, be inconsistent
with the idea, that Congress can abolish it, then
It is nrockery to refer the question to the courts:
for the, history of federal jurisprudence shows
that the courts would decide in favor OF such
power in Congress
fNosv az to non.in Intervention. Tie gentleman
from Ohio tMr.. .Sweetzer} says that this has
been the doctrine of the great democratic party
North No such thing, sir. They have ever
yotedto prohibit slavery North Of $500. Since
this doctrine of non-intervention was proposed
by them, they have, on many occasions, relative
to Oregon and other territories, voted to prohi-
bit slavery Whenever the Missouri Compro-
mise was to be executed in their favor, North of
$3.50, inlerpenioa has, invariably, been their
doctrine; it was only when that compromise
was to be carried out South of $3.50 that non
Intervention became the doctrine. One doc
trine for the North, and another for the South.
Non.interyention was never dreamed of until
the expedient of using Mexican laws against
/; the South was agreed upon The doctrine
was then invented in order IN save their Mexi
can laws from being intefered with, and to per-
NIT them to intervene against Southern emi-.
grants.
Mr. Carter inquired whether the doctrine of
non.intcrvention did not originate in the South!
Mr.. Woodward The word non-intervention
originated with the South, but that spurious
and feeble construction that has been put upon
it had no such origin. What Llr. Calhoun
meant, was that Congress should not interfere
with the constitutional question Of tho existence
of slavery in the territories of the Union, and
not that Congress should be absoired from its
obligation 20 legislate for the protection of any
rights existing under the Constitution. AS to
myself, Irepudiated the word from the first, and
attempted to expose the false doctrines which,
Iforesaw, would be built upon it.
BALr1MoRE, Aug. 3, 1850.
GALE INTHE WEST INpIEs:-A tremendous
gale of wind occurred in the West Indies on
the 18th of July: Two brgs were wrecked,
and six lives lost. s go. 90
NEw YoRK, Aag. /, 1850.
TERR1BLE RAILROAD AccIpEST.--The
freight train, consisting of twenty-five cars,
from Oswego, on the New York and Erie Rail
road, was precipitated through bridge cross
ing d rayine,n yesterday afternoon. The entire
.hanlaxent down; and the cars became a perfect
wreck; hesentire ravine was literally filed
with the fragments The whole number Of
cars#ere throRn one on top Of the other in
perfect broken mass Of ruius. Several lives, it
is believed seven or seight, were lost
"a Charleston Mercury.