Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-21
THE DUTY OF THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY

we nave, heretofore, on more OCCASIONS
than one expressed our decided conviction that
all anti.slavery ordinances are unconstitutional.
We contend that, even in the absence of the
express provisions Of the Constitution recognis-
ing the right of the master to the service and
labor Of his slave the article which gives to
Congress the "power to dispose of and make
all needful rules and regulations respecting the
territory or other property belonging to the
United States does not authorize the passage
Of law prohibiting orlimiting the introduction
of slaves within the Territories. We maintain
that, even if nt-slavery ordinances did not vio-
late the tenor, spirit, and purpose of the Con-
stitution, in their want of uniformity and equal
ity of action and in their manifest injustice and
anti-republican character, still the strict con-
struction of the Constitution, which the demo-
cratic party has adopted as its first and greatest
maxim, and to which it has ever stood pledged,
would exclude any such Interpretation of the
foregoing article, as would warrant Congress
in enacting law interfering with the domestic
relations of the inhabitants Of the Territories.
The Constitution does not even confer on
Congress such power over the Territories as is
given over the District of Columbia and places
purchased for the erection of forts, magazines
arsenals, and dock-yards. In the one case,
Congress can only make such needful rules and
regulations as are pertinent to the Territories
as property, while in the others it hasexclusive
legislation. A "needful' rule respecting prop.
erty does not mean law operating exclusively
upon domestic institution. The authority to
make Regulation" respecting land does not
confer the right to pass an act prohibiting an
established relation of service. 1t would be the
widest latitude Of construction so to interpret
that provision of the Constitution. And yet
the authority to enact the Missouri restriction
was at the time, and ever since has been, claimed
to be derived from the power to make all need
fel rules and regulations respecting the terri
tory or other property Of the United States If
a strict construction of the Constitution would
forbid any such Interpretation, ms it most
clearly does, the Missouri compromise was un.
constitutional. If unconstitutional it should
not be allowed to remain on the statute-book.
We ask, then. how can any democrat, who
holds to tho cardinal doctrine of strict con-
struction, excuse himself to his own conscience
or to his own party, if he refuses to follow
where that doctrine leads2 Certainly, no prin-
ciple of the democratic party is more firmly
established It has been announced again and
again by national and State conventions. 1t
has been elevated prominently above all others.
1t has always occupied as it were the post Of
honor. 1t has ever been the right arm OF the
democracy. If any principle has ever been
recognised rs test, as the grand and broad
distinction between democracy and federalism,
it is this. Has not then, the faithful democratic
majority, laboring for the integrity and supre-
macy of this great doctrine in the Nebraska
bill, the right to expect, if not to demand, that
the minority protesting that faith should fulfil
the obligations which their own creed imposes
upon them2
If the friends of the Nebraska bill have not
the right to expect every democrat to support
III, In consequence OF HIS Pioi0oooA ootShSo
to the controlling doctrine of strict construc-
ton, they most surely have, when the clearly
expressed language of the democratic party,
in relation to the compromise measures of
1850, is fairly and properly considered.
The democracy of the country IN convention
assembled, endorsed those measures. If GER
tain portions of the democratic party like the
language better, we will say that the principles
Of that compromise we're acquiesced in. The
promise to "adhere to those principles was
then and there distinctly made. We scorn any
such construction of the resolutions Of the con-
vention as would subject the democracy even
to suspicion Of an attempt to practise fraud.
In good faith the democratic party pledged it.
self to adhere to the principles OF tho compro-
mise Of 1850. Iflanguage meant anything, the
democratic party assured the country that the
principle on which tho slavery question with
respect to Utah and New Mexico was adjusted
was just, proper, and satisfactory. Unless :