Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-10-01
"VIRGINIUS.'

1t ia with extreme regret that we find ourselves
compelled to differ from "Vrginus," whose commu.
nicaton appears to day.
In our opinion "Virginius" aoors under the very
same error to Judge Douglas that we have before
pointed out. We publish with the communication
from "Virginus' an extract from "The Philadelphia
Press"
In Judge Douglas answer 10 Mr.. Lincoln's second
question: he is stating erisng fact aud not enun-
cisting principle or laying down policy. His an-
is 'tbat in my opinion the people OF territory
can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their
limits prior to the formation of State Constitutions;
and then he proceeds to point out how the exclusion
may be made under existing legislation, and says
at matters not what way the Supreme Court may
hereafter decide to the abstract question, whether
slavery may or may not 20 into territory under the
Constitution, the people have the lawfu means to in
roduce exclude it as they please, for tie reason
that Slarery cannot ezist dny or an hour dnychere,
unless supported by local police regulations" Judge
Douglas position is not that the Constitution does
not in theory carry slavery into the territories, but
that the nature of the institution Is such that il can
not exist day an hour anyDhere unless supported
| by local police regulations" The Constitution does
in theory authorize "Vrgnius" to carry his slaves
into any territory, but "Vrgnus" finds no local laws
to punish q man for running said slaves away; he
inds no local laws to reclaim bis runaway slave; he
| finds every impeachment thrown in his way by the
want of local laws, and reclamation prevented; and
though the Constitution authorizes him to go, yet
| "Virginius would not risk his property upon the
empty rights conferred by the Constitution. The
protection of local legislation may be necessary to
make the rights conferred by the Constitution Of any
validity, and there is no authority to compel Ter
ritoria Legislature to enact the local "pooe regu
| ati6ns."
Judge Douglas is explaining existing legislation
he showing how under the Dred Scott decision, the
rights of the South under and conferred by the Con
etitution, are mere empty and valuesss rights. He
says: "These police regulations can only be estsb
lished by local egislatioD; and if the people op
posed to slavery they will elect representatives te
that body, who will, by unfriendy legislation efsc
tuay prevent the introduction of II into their midst.
This is no new doctrine it is not original with Judg.
Douglas; it was pointed out by Orr and Stephens
when discussing the Kansas Bill
On this point Hon. James l.. Orr ia sngularly clea
and explicit. His views were given in debate In
gress over slavery in the Territories, in December
1856. There is remarkable similarity between tht
views Of Douglas, in his Freeport speech, in 1858,
the words of Orr, in Congress, in 1856. Mr.. Orr
said:
~ say, although deny that squattsr sovereignty
exists in the Territoriee of Kansas and Nebraska BY
virtue of this bill it is matter practically of little
consequence whether it does not; and | think
shall be able to satisfy the gentleman Of that. The
| gentleman knows thai, 10 every slsveholdng com
munity of this UuiOu, we have local legislation anc
local police regulations sppertaining to that institu
ton, without which the institution would not only bt
valueless, but curse TO the community Withou
them the Shareholder could not enforce his right
when invaded by others; and If you had no local le
gslaion for the purpose ofgvng protection, the in
stituton would be Of No value. can appeal 10 every
gentleman upon this Aoor who represents slavehold
ing constituency, 10 attest the truth of what hav,
stated upon that point.
Now, the legislative authority Of Territory 10 in
vested with discretion to vote for or against laws
We think they ought to pass laws in every Territory
when the Territory is open to settlement and slave
holders go there, to protect slave property. But
they decline TO pass such laws, what is the remedy
None air. II the majority Of the people opposed
to the institution, aud if they do not desire it engrsft
ed upon their territory, all they have TO do is simply
to decline to pass laws in the Territorial Legislature
for ts protection and then it ia as we'll excluded as
the power was invested 10 the Territorial Legislature
| and exercised py lnen, 10 pronluU IL. NOW, OIL
the gentleman, what is the practical Importance +
result from the agitation and discussion Of this ques
ton ss to whether squatter sovereignty does or doe
not exist Practically it is matter oflittle moment
In reply to query from Humphrey Marshall, Q
Kentucky, and as showing the all important nstur
of local legislation, Mr.. Orr said:
Suppose party ia Territory inveiges away hi
slave. and there is no law making it a crimint
offence, how do you reach himi Suppose an ndi
vidual harbors your slave while in the Territory
what remedy have you against him7 What remed
have you 10 enforce the rights Of the owner sgains
trespassers and ntermeddlers unless you have loci
legislature to psss laws 10 enforce these rightsP'
Again, he said: ut is not The right OF property i
.lares speak of requiring protection, bu, it is tb
local legislation Of the Territory to prevent that proE
erty being trespassed upon, tsmpered or interfere
! with by Others"
Are not the views Of Douglas and Orr idsnticall
, Orr was right in 1856, Douglas is right in 1851
Douglas presents his views the settled fact on t
exact premises occupied by Orr. We commend tt
extracts to the press generally.
1 As the case is one peculiarly interesting to Il
. South, we make room fos two short extracts fro