Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-07-27

show, we have every reason 10 trust Mr.. Douglas in
this respect view OF his past course ard his pre.ent
avowala, made in tho very teeth Of Biac, Republican
opposition, at time when every suggestion of cor.
ruption or timdty would urge him to make -acri
nee Of principle or The purpose of conciliating sup
port among ta aderents.
But We have something before ua far more impor
tant tLan the fortunes Of a statesmen, or even the
welfare of party. Tho "Day Book" properly in.
sists on the prime Importance of tlicient protection
to the rights of Shareholders in all our Territories
Let us examine the nature Of the policy required for
this object
The right Of property in alsves, in the States. s
now placed practically, well as legally, beyond TIE
reach of federal legislative encroachment. But in
the Territories the is different 1t is not suif-
cient that the decision Of the Supreme Court prevents
Congress and all its delegates from the prohibition
of slavery in Territory. There must be- positive
legislative enactment; civil aud criminal code for
the protection OF slave property in the Territories
ought TO be provided. To limited extent this is
already provided. In every Territory containing
majority OF pro slavery men, the power of the Terri
toral Legislature is all sufficient for the purpose In
other Territories, it is at esst doubtful whether the
legislatures will exercise this power and there is no
power elsewhere TO compel such exercise. In such
case Of omission, and under the present state of fade
raj Legislation, much, If not all must depend on the
loyalty and efficiency OF the President of the United
States He il ia who appoints the Territorial e1ecu.
tive and judiciary. II will be the province of this
judiciary to protect slave property far possible
under the laws Of the federal code for the protection
OF property generally and it will be The business of
the Territorial executive TO uphold and enforce the
authority OF the Judiciary IL will be the duty of the
President 10 hold both funconaries TO Jealous per-
formance of their several offices. Hence, We cordially
uui,e with the Day Book in the assertion, thstt
n-1t Democratic nominee for the Presidency should
be pledged to the protection Of slave property in all
the Territories
Aud We go further. II is very desirable that Con-
gress should pass additional laws for the protection of
slave property in the Territories This would not op.
crate to force slavery upon an unwilling people. Ii
would simply protect slave property wherever it
actually found-it would not prevent the prohibition
OF slavery when people came TO form State Con-
sttuton in short, it would secure every constitutional
right, without arbitrarily attempting TO contravene
laws and wosld remove forever The dis
ture. The present code Of federal legislation il insult
fcient for this purpose. The general provisions of
the civil code afford but imperfect protection to
this species OF property snd the criminal code may be
described as almos: useless for the purpose.
But whs We earnestly desire such additional
legislation, aud believe that it can be secured in
time by constantly placing the matter before the
public in its full and proper light, We would
not have this matter pushed to the extent Of We
henen; contest. This fer several reasons -
Such legislation would do but ;'l. beyond the
mere suppression of agitation We are scarcely
sangune enough to believe that it could operate to
add sngie new slave State TO the Union. In those
territories which Offer extraordinary temptations and
facilities of immigration 10 slavehullers so that pro
slavery men will congregste there, and constitute
mnores OF settlers, the territorial legislatures will
certainly afford sufficient protection TO slave property
In ali other instances, the great preponderance of
Northern population, their immense floating capital.
the comp.rav" difficulty of transporting slaves, and
the chance that the territory TO which they are trans
ported may eventually become = free State; - all
these causes will operate strongly with without,
additional federal legislation for tho protection of
V,
our territories.
And there ia smother reason why this subject should
40; be premsur-ly urged upon the deliberations OF
Congress. Experience has taught us that the South
ought not 20 rely too implicitly on the wisdom and
loyalty oi the whole body Of her own politicians.
Let a sectional issue once become hotly con.
tested on the floor Of Congress,-et it appear that
Southern statesmep are threatened with paria.
mentsry defeat-and they are always too prone to
yield to some compromise - some proviso sone
Badger amendment-likely TO irritate and increase
the very grievance which they called to redress.
We would suggest, then, that the South should frs,
be prepared to view this question as TO additional
legislation in all its aspects by means of calm and
dispaesonate di-cus.ons-and the policy which we
suggest is evidently requisite to the great interests
OF the whole country, that the conservative men OF
the North cannot long delay earnest operation in
the work Of deprvng the fanatics and demagogues
of both sections, OF the lsst preext for sectional
-trife.
We feel confident that the "Day Book" will entirely
concur In these views with regard 10 the constitutional
rights of rsvehoders in the United States, and the
consequent policy which the Democratic party
throughout the Union should adopt, IS necessary for
its own future guidance, and even for its continued
pre.srvation Tried by this standard, let review
the opinions OF Senator Douglas on the subject
During the campaign OF 1856, and if We are not mis-
taken, in epeeches delivered both before and after
tha, period, Mr.. Douglas openly advocated the doc
trins that suve labor will ond ought to be employed
wherever cma,ory influences render it preferabs to
free labor During the past session OF Congress Mr..
Douglas expressly argued that the attributes OF cove
regnty belong only to the States OF the contederacy
that The people of Territory have Tho absolute right
to form consttuton in their own way, and without
CONGRESSIONAL Intervention, only because such con.
stuton in intended to express the sovereign will,
soon "a ths nsw State sha be admitted to the Union
II Mr.. Douglas has occasionally employed the e1
preston "pcpular sovereignty" in any s-nse opposed
to ;his, his own able exposons OF the subject are
fully sufficient 10 demonstrate that he inadvertently
fell into mere error Of expression, (very prevalent
at this time,l while intending to designate the limited
power Of seIf government, which the people Of
Territory are enabled to exert by permission OF Con
grees.
In his late speech at Springfield, Mr. Douglas dis
tnctly amts tina, Congress has no right to prohibit
slavery in the territories. aud hence the territorial
Ieosla,rrss have no right to do it. Thus Mr.. Doug
las has gone to the full extent of the doctrine e1pound.
ed by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, and
asserted by the President in the Silliman letter.
With this clear and just appreciation of the princi'
pies involved, We do not doubt that Mr.. Douglas
combines an entire Willingness to recognize and per
form whatever patriotic duties this acknowledgment
of PRINCIPLES may dictate. That Mr. Douglas, in
common with the other statesmen who prepared and
enacted The Nebraska bill, has more than one serious
srror n a,one for in that respect cannot be denied-
But MA are ready 10 believe tina; these involved
no wiful negligence of constitutional right; and II
past records, or present avo~ais or both together
constitute reliable test no s'atesmen OF the North'
and very few at the South have defended the rights
of slavebo,dsr, more warmly and esctualy, or have