New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-12-09

DONE Still it, main feature exhibits striking the
recent and rapid advance Of toe Slave Power
toward complete domination within the nominally
Free States as well a. those avowedy subject to its
sway To this feature, we ask emphatic AMI fixed
| attention.
The Malakof Of the North I'm advocates Of the
Nebrs,ka bill was the asserted right Of each polit
cal community to franc and adopt such social and
political institutions as majority Ct its members
should deem most conducive to their own per-
mar ent well being. "Why not" it was constantly
asked "slow Kansas and all States hereafter to be
crested, to adopt or reject Slavery it's own PeO
pie shall see fit, Just as New York snd Pennsyl
van'a and Vermont sevtraily did? Why deny to
their People right which We claim for ourselves
Why apply one rule to Territories and another to
Ststesl' Such was the train of augmentation
which induced q large portion Of the North and
West to acquiesce in the repeal of the Missouri
Restriction embt died in the Nebraska Kansas bill.
At leas. q thousand Democratic speeches have been
made in Congress and before the People, purp,r.-
ing to defend the doctrine of "Popular Sever
eiguty" for Territories as well as States
But tie bill had not been long passed before the
South began to advance her demands aud to clai n
of tie Free State, recognition Of the right Of each
STAKEHOLDER to settle With his slaves in any Terri
tory in dsfaIce Of any adverse local sentiment or
legislation. The Democratic politicians of Penn
sylvabia were, as u,ual, foremost in the race Of
submission to this new demand. Senator Brodhead
go. the ,tart, and Mr. J. Clancy ,nes soon followed
In regular course thereafter, the last D-mocratic
National Conyenti resolved that the Pc pie of the
Territories "ehtneuer the Number Of their inhabit-
ants justifts it," may "form State Constis buttons,
"with or without domestic Slavery - maintaining
an expressive silence the subect of their right to
EXCLUDE or iphibit Sasely while they remained Ter
ritories.
The step next in order was the bred Scott de:i-
sion, whereby the Supreme Court denied to Con-
grtss IS well to the People Of the Territories any
right TO exclude Slavery from those Territories re-
spectively; and this wa, backed by Mr.. Buchanan
in his Silliman letter as follows
"Slorery ezsted at that period [passase of the Ne
braska Act and still exists IN Kansas under the Con-
SutioR Of the United States. This point has at length
been decided by the highest tribunal known to our
laws. HOw cOrid hare been seriously doubted is
a mgslery.'
Mr.. Buchanan now follows up this blow by a
thorough Endorsement Of the late bogus Constisu-
tonsl Convention in Kansas, with all i.s dOiues,
and plumply says that, no matter how generally
and Indignantly the People of Kansas shall repu-
date that body and its acts, they shall have the
force of legal authority eff any portion of tie
inhabitants shall refuse to vote, O. fair opportu-
unity to do 80 having been presented,
they alone will be responsible for the couse-
"quences Though they are not allowed to vote
on nne-tentts of the Constitution proposed for
their government except "for" it, But suppose
msjority vote "For the Constitution ,oihom
Slavery" the result will nevertheless bs the Con-
,tituion nth Sasery-only that the future i'm.
portstion of Slaves is forbidden. To enttle any
one to vote, he must if challenged, swear to sup
port this Constitution which he is only allowed to
vote "for," not against; and though nine senths
should vote for it eithot Slavery Slavery is never
theless to continue and "No alteration of this Con
"sti,ution1 ths be made to affect the right Of
"property in Slaves" All this Mr.. Buchanan in
dorses as proper reason able and Just, closing the
subject as follows:
"Should the Constitution without Slavery be
adopted by the votes Of the majority the nghts OF
property in slaves in the Territory are reserved.
The number Of these is very small but il II were
greater the provision would be equally just and
so1 able. These slaves were brought into the Terri
tory urder the Constitution Of the United States, and
the property of their masters. This point mas
at length been finally decided by the highest al
tribunal Of the courtyard this upon the PLAN prn.
cple that when confederscy of sovereign States
quire new Territory at their joint expense, both
equality and justice demand thai the c,iz Of ore
ard all Of them shall have the right to take into it
Whatsoever is recognized as property by the common
Constitution. To have summarily cOpfscated the
property in slaves already In the Territory, would
have been act of gross Justice and contrary to the
practice Of the older States Of the Union which have
abolished Slavery"
Will any one say how it is possible, in accordance
new Safe IN which there shall be no SLarery at ALI
We who prefer that sort of State are not Jet for
mally outlswed, though 30 many Of us a. happen to
live in Kansas are practically under the ban Sup
pose, now, that nineteen twentieths Of the People
Of New. Mexico choose to organize State Govern
ment under which no human bsing shall be legally
htli in Slavery to another. But few slaves have
already slipped in, while the Supreme Court and
Mr. Buchanan maintain that there was no power
anywhere to exclude Slavery, and our State finds
them in position. Is there no way whereby nine.
eentwentieths Of the free inhabitants can emanci-
pate themselves from the iron yoke of tho remain.
ING twentieth What are the vast majority to do
Mr.. Buchanan, indeed, sfirms that at her Conssi.
"ta'iOn on the subject Of Slavery, or on any other
"tubect, be dsplsssing to maj 'rity of her PEG.
"Ple, no human power can prevent them from
" changing it within brief period" We'll: sup
pose they do change it, and forbid Slavery, what of
it Must not the Supreme Court inevitably, in ac-