New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-12-17


TRIBUNE, full of complaints of lodging, evasion,
and "hOppipg about on our part, but, though 10
asks us four questions, it very carefully evades any
answers to tho single question which we asked in
our last. That question was as follows:
:. The Atlas observes that it is perfectly nstura
that The TRIBUNE should stand on ono side of thus
que stion fOf Cong inhibition OF Slavery IN the
Teritoriesl, and We TIE AAa, on the other Bot,
if This is 80 naiwo' will The alias be good enough to
tell US how it happe ned that THE TRIBUNE and The
atlas stood on the same side Of this very question
few years ago. sndthat the very side still maintained
by THE TRIBrsEp
columns to answer our single question, We shall
proceed at once to answer its four questions, viz:
81. Does not the Kansas organic act give TO the
Per pie Of the Territories the whole control OF Slavery
be right 10 establish to prohibit t-subect only to
the Constitution of the United States !"
Ansssr-No, Sir Practically, that cot subjects
stituton, but to what the present Supreme Court
q msjority Of is Judges being Democratic slave
bo.ders and Leafly all tho rest conspicuous dough-
faces-shsll decide or infer that said Constitution
requiies-wbich, to our mind, is very different
thing. II you don't believe il, wait and read care
fully the decision which that Supreme Court is
about 10 pronoaAee in the case of bred Scott. We
can REMINDER the time when The Albany Attas
csrcurIed in ibis view, and rejpced with us when
the House. By eight majority, laid on the table
Jchb NJ. Al Inns Senate proposition to submit the
whole question Of Slavery in the Territories to tho
ceciiion II ibe SppreDe Court.
40 Have Lot the people of Kansas, under that set,
clearly the right to prohibit Slavery, unless the doctrine
Is sound that the Cor siiuiiOD Of the United States car.
rits Slavery into the TcrIifOriesP
mo, SiI And if they had the rigA..
they were Invested Of the po,ctr, when the Border
Rufians usurped the Legislative rights Of the Peo-
Die Of Kansas through their invasion and fraudulent
election of March 30, 1S55-an election which your
party, in defiance Of incOntestabe proof OF its
FRAUD, has upheld ard enforced as legal and valid;
ard thus the right which the Nebrasks Act seemed
TO conct de to the settlers of Kansas has been
wresteo from them by the direct action of part and
the coubivsnce Of the residue Of that acts sup
pOIteIa.
- g. Do you believe that the Constitution carries
Slavery into the TenitOrieel
Ansmer-No Sir but we believe the Supreme
Court will say it does, which is practically the same
as il il dia.
-. Under tie prov lsfons OF Inc CoDsututlOn ana
tie Kansss act do you bold thai the people OF Kansas
and Nebraska have the constitutional and legal right
by territorial legislation, to prohibit Slavery"
Ansmr-No, Sir We hold that q true utter
probation of the Constitution would give them that
right; but the Nebraska Act was aeyer intended to
give, and therefore does not give, them any such
right We cannot assume to cOnstrue a measure
which We have steadily resisted and denounced, in
opposition to the construction Of its authors and
steadfast supporters. We believe there was Jug
gle in this act from the frst-that it was purposely
So framed as to wear t~o opposite faces, and for
time bear two antagonist constructions. We be-
i.ye its authors were in the interest Of Slavery
Extension fiom the s'ar.-that they knew that the
Suprne Court would take the Shareholders view
Of the Nho,e subject-and that therefore Slavery
would have its vii 10 the premises precisely as if
the Constitution had 50 prescribed.
Having thus answered The Adas's four ques-
III ne, We will thank il to answer our one question
aforesaid ard to let its readers zee our answers TO
It's Own. II theIe is any lodging or "hopping
around" in these wers they will then know it,
sid not be constrained to take it on trust.