Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-08-15

disayowal is made in such clear and manly terms
that we make room for it as the best present COM
ment upon the platform of the Ohio Democracy.
JUDGE WARDEN of Columbus, a democrat Of
long standing and extensive influence promptly on
the 9Th inst entered his disclaimer of the action
of the party and announced his separation from 1t
for the following sufficient reasons.
The Democratic party, in Convention last Thurs
day, not only endorsed the bred Scott decision, but
declared the concurrence of the Supreme Court
Of the United States, in the doctrines with regard
TO the constitutional powers and political rights of
the States and Territories, which have been main
tained by the Democratic party" The fourth and
fifth resolutions are in these words
See The resolutions ADORE.
The National Convention Of June, 1856. cree
ognizod" and adopted" the principles contained
in the organic laws, establishing the Territories OF
Kansas and Nebraska, as embodying the only
sound and safe solution of the slavery question:
upon which the great National idea of the people
of this whole country can repose in its determined
conservatism of the Observation-Disclosures by
Congress with slavery in State and Territory, or
in the District of Columbia"
The principles" Of the Organic Laws estab-
fishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska,
were summed up in the Organic Act as follows {:
at being the true intent and meaning CT this act,
not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory
nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the peo.
pie thereof perfectly free to form and regulate
their domestic institutions in their own way, sub
ject only to the Constitution of the United State s."
VIXEN the Kansas act was passed, il was ex-
planned by all the oracles of the Democratic party
at the North as comforting on the sqatters, the set
tiers in Kansas, through a Territorial Legislature,
full power to allow or to prohibit the introduction
of slavery every Northern Democratic press,
every Northern Democratic orator insisting chat
no slave could be held in Kansas except under
direct and express legislation in the territory
But now it seems, 'the doctrines with regard to
the constitutional powers and political rights of
the States and Territories" pronounced by the
Supreme Court of the United States. concur"
with those (which have been maintained by the
Democratic party, and formerly avowed by it in
three national conventions"
If, then, we would know the real meaning of
the language cited from the Kansas act, and the
real meaning of the recognition" and adoption"
of its principles" by the June convention in
1855, at Cincinnati, we have only to read the fol-
lowing sentences from the syllabus in the bred
Scott case,
3. The United States, under the present Consti-
tuition, cannot acquire territory to be held as a col
ony, to be governed at its will and pleasure. But
it may acquire territory which at the time, has
not a population that fits it to become q State, and
may govern it as q Territory until it has a popu-
lation which in the judgment of Congress entities
it to be admitted as a state Of the Union.
4. During the time it remains a Territory, Con-
gress may l~egislate over it within tho scope of its
constitutional powers in relation to citizens OF the
United States-and may establish q Territorial
Government-and the form Of this local Govern
ment must be regulated by the discretion of Con
gress-but with powers not exceeding those which
Congress itself, by the Constitution, is authorized
to exercise over citizens of the United States in re
spect to their rights of persons OF rights or prop
erty.
Nv.
1. The territory thus acquired, is acquired by
the people of the United States for their common
and equal benefit. through their agent and trustee
the Federal Government. Congress can exercise
no power over the ri ghts of persons or property
of q citizen in the territory which is prohibited by
the Constitution. The Government and the citi
zens, whenever the territory is open to settlement
both enter it with their respective rights defined
and limited by tho Constitution.
.. Congress. has no right to prohibit the citi'
Gems of any particular State or States from taking
up their home there, while it permits citizens OF
other States to do so. Nor has it a right to give
privileges to one class of citizens which 1t refuses
another. The territory is acquired for their equal
and common beneft-and if open to any, it must
be open to all upon equal and the same terms.
3. Every citizen has a right to take with him
into the territory any article of property which
the Constitution of the United States recognises
as property.
4. The CONSTITUTION OF inc Unltcu CthIeo lccoS
nizes slaves as property and pledges the Federal
government to protect it. Ana Congress cannot
exercise any more authority over property OF that
description than it may constitutionally exercise
over property of any other kind.
5. The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a
citizen of the United States from taking with him
his slaves when he removes to the Territory in
question to reside, is an exercise of authority over
private property which is not warranted by the
Cunstitutlon-and the removal OF the plaintlf, by
his owner, to that Territory, gave him no title to
freedom.
This is the only part of the bred Scott decision
in which anything relating to- popular sovereign
ty is anywhere discernable. This then, is the in
stance of the supposed concurrence" between the
Court and the Party. Whether q negro may DC a
citizen of the United States or not, does not touch
popular sovereignty, or any such constitutional
Powers and Political Rights of the States and
Territories" as must have been In the contempla.
ton of those who framed, and those who adopted
Resolution S of the platform made last Thursday
(See above.) Whether, when a slave is taken
by his master into q free State, but returns with
him to q slave State, he is free or slave, does MOI
concern the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty II
Territories. 1t must be the doctrine l have cited
from the bred Scott case, which the Democratic
Party finds, with 'deep gratihcation,' to concur
with his own real opinions, formally avowed by
it 1.-THE Democratic Party, in three national Con
ventions."
| cannot believe that the pody OF the democratic
voters can come to know and appreciate thes'
things without alarm on the subject of the rela
tions they sustain to the party known as Demo
cratic. For my own part, l have been strongly
attached to the Democratic party-too strongly
to abandon it from caprice or selfshness-to
strongly to witness its gradual change from thu
defense of State Rights to centralism, withou
vigorous efforts to revive its ancient faith and res
tore it's ancient practice. For years have seer
the party tendency to Southernism and Central
ism-and within the party organization, hav'
faithfully assisted other Democrats in the enaeaV
ors to restrain that tendency. InoW 9ive up the tasj
n, homeless. am no abolitionist. | am no ia
matte. For quite seventeen years, | have beer
in the active service of the Democratic party
and in constant association with its wOrthiest mem
bers. The whole n lumber OF influences to when
have been subject has been unfavorable to the for
:~c azIsauaa onininns intnlerant of slaYerY