Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1858-09-29
IRE Stapeate.
4 COMPROMISE IN OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
FOR THE DEMOCRACY TO ANSWER.

FOK The DEMOGRACY III Ans WLN
Until very recently We had supposed it to be the
sincere wish Of every true Democrats every true
patriothat the question of slavery in the Terrific
ries should be definitely settled. By the Republic
cans has been claimed that Congress may exercise
all power over the subject The Democracy, on the
other hand while they have denied that Congress
possessA any authority over slavery in the Terrific
ries and have admitted that the people thereof are
clothed by the Constitution with oil needdl power
in the premises have nevertheless been divided in
opinion IN regard to the time when that power may
be exercised for against slavery. One section Of
our party have claimed that by virtue of the federal
compact the Territories being held in joint tenancy
by the States, all property recognised by any MEM
Der of the confederacy must be protected BY the
several territorial governments; that the citizen
claiming such property has . right to demand pro-
lection for it. and that there is power in the local
authorities to withhold it. These men maintained,
and with irresistible truth and fairness that the Ter
rtories are held as the joint estates of all the MEM
bers of the Union that the governments thereof
can be ciOthed With authority which shall be in
conflict with the rights of the people of the States
respectively. Otherwise they assert that territorial
governments instead of representing State sovereign.
ties, as they should, in order to be in harmony with
our system, would be independent political commu-
mites and have the right, such, to prescribe the
very authority under which they act In other
words, the States, by virtue Of the Constitution,
have empowered the people Of the Territories to es-
temporary
therein to exercise legislative powers, in conjunction
with q presiding officer appointed by the President
Now has been contended by large portion of the
Democratic party that the local governments thus
created cannot act as to impair the rights of the
citizens of the States who through their representa-
.tives, created those governments.
Another interest Of the Democratic party have
maintained, that slavery could only exist by the
thority Of The local law the law of the place. and
that it was perfectly competent for the territorial
governments to ordain prohibit that institution
the legislative power might determine. These per-
sons argued that, with reference to all matters ap.
pertaining to the government Of the States-such
relate to guardian and ward, marriage and divorce
parent and child the descent of Estates the punish
ment of crime, and various other affairs of the civil
adminst,a alton, including slavery and apprentice
ship-the territorial government possessed exclusive
powers of legislation.
When the Kansas Nebraska bill was enacted these
two divisions of the Democratic party found them
selves face to face. The frst,named desired, of
course that the bill should specifically restrict the
legislature to the exercise only of such powers
would not be in conflict with the rights of the cti-
of the several States with distinct reference to
what by the laws thereof was recognised as proper
ty The opposite interest maintained that such lim
itaton unconstitutional and that the people of
the Territory under the government proposed to be
created had the exclusive right to declare therein
what should be held as property, and what should
be recognised as such. Both parties, however, con-
Cured in the judgment that the real question in dis
pute between them was one of strictly legal
ture, and that its decision should be left the Su-
preme Court of the United States In this view a
compromise was readily agreed upon, that the act
should be passed comforting general legislative pow
ers "subject only to the Constitution of the United
States" We do not contend that the Limitation
thus verbally reserved in the bill could affect the
question of constitutional power conferred upon the
territorial legislature. By no means. Yet, never.
fhooo IN s,ofkh
the issue, if you please, put upon the record, be
tried and decided by the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States
Now, let Us see what that court subsequently, de-
cided? We quote from Chief Justice fancy, speak
ing for the majority and finally. and thus placing
tha matter above and beyond the power of judicial
control. After maintaining, in m elaborate argu-
ment, that Congress possesses power to legisate
the subject Of slavery and declaring the Missouri
ri Compromise unconstitutional he proceeds:
IF Congress itself cannot do ths-if it is beyond
the powers conferred on the federal government-it
will be admitted, we presume, that it could not au-
thorize territorial government to exercise them
1t could confer no power on any local government,
established by its authority, to violate the provisions
of the constitution.
And if the constitution recognises the right of
property of the master in q slave and makes no
distinction between that description of property and
other property owned BY citizen, no tribunal, act
ing under the authority Of the United States wheth
er legislative, executive, or judicial has a ight to
draw such distinction or deny to it the benefit of
the provisions and guarantees which have been pro-
vded for the protection of private property against
the eDcroachment of the government"
We have, then, the decision of the court upon the
great question which divided the democracy on the
occasion of the passage of the Kansas Nebraska act
The powers conferred upon the territorial !egisla-
ture extending to all rghtful subjects of legisla-
ton" the courts decides did not embrace that of
slavery. When the people of that place come to
organize their State government preparatory to ad
mission into the Union they then for the first time
assume to themselves the functions of ignty
and may exercise over the matter of slavery abso-
lutte jurisdiction and power except with reference
to the surrender of fugitives which is guaranteed
under another provision Of the constitution.
Now, we desire to present this matter thus dis
tincty, and we trust clearly, to the democracy of
the Union, and to ask them whether not they are
prepared to adopt the decision Of the Supreme
Court as the basis of settlement of the whole sa-
very question in its application to the Territories
not? Are the people of the South willing to sur
render this final judgment of the matter and again
plunge into another great controversy with the
publicans and trimmers of the democratic party
Are the democracy, North and South, East and
West, willing 10 reopen the whole subject of slave
~ in Congress, in Kansas and everywhere by re.
pndating the bred Scott decision and again falling
back upon the opinions which prevailed when the
Kansas bill was under discussion? Have we not
yet been sufficiently weakened, demoralized, and
broken in the North that must court another en-
counter and be compelled through series Of years
to uphold and maintain constitutional opinions
and meet smother smeute of fanaticism, demagogue-
ism, and follyi
: Who, then, are the parties who are now conniv-
ing and confederating together for the purpose of
whiting down the bred Scot decision and commit.
ting the democratic party to the wicked policy of
again fighting over our territorial battles p WasA
Union. ,zss,s
SCIENTIFIC PARADoxEs.-The water which browns
us, fluent stream. can be walked upon as ice
The bullet which. when fired from the musket, car
ries death, will be harmless if ground to dust before
being fred The crYsalized mart Of the oil of roses