Daily national Democrat., 1858-11-27
Slavery In the Territories.

|
a devotion of the columns of this paper t.
the discussion Of political subjects to a mucl
greater extent than in ordinary times W
should have deemed proper for, notwith
standing our position as the recognized or
gan of the regular non.bolting Democracy o
this county, we do not believe that even 4
political paper should be too much filled W
with political matter AT the same time
however, we have not been slack about Civ
ing a very considerable amount of genera
news, and shall continue to do so in the midst
of the most heated political discussions, In
this conneXion, We may say that we are hap
| py to observe that the necessity for Offering
any defence of the political standing of the
great Illinois statesman is daily diminishing
The vndictive and unprecedented assault.
which were made upon him by the Washing
ton Union, speaking for the President of the
United States, at the opening of the contest
in Illinois, and 10y the Lecompton organs Of
this State, directly after the last election,
charging him with an abandonment of Dem.
ocratic principles and deliberate intention
to go over to the enemy, were of character
to lead one to suppose that an array of proof
would be brought against him, which, how
ever fallaeious in its nature, might yet be
difficult to meet with such explanations as
would satisfy superficial inqurers The
charges were certainly of staggering char
acter, especially those made after the delive.
ry Of his Freeport speech, but the proof to
sustain them-it was as fimsy as the gcssa.
mer fabrics Of summers morning. When
the whole country was taught to believe that
the Administration, in its bowling onslaught
upon Judge Douglas, was backed by the en-
tire South, 10, the fact appeared that all the
great leaders of the Southern Democracy had
Indignantly refused to join in the cry, and
had proclaimed their undiminished conf
dence in the integrity of the Illinois Senator
and the purity of his Democratic principles
When, again, it was announced by the Wash
ington Union and its satellites and echos, as
we'll in California as elsewhere that Judge
Douglas had enunciated in his Freeport
speech sentiments which were in direct an
tagonism to all the views and feelings of
the South, on the question Of slavery in the
Territories, and that the South was eonse-
quently ready to delay no longer in reading
him clean out of the Democratic party for
ever and ever, 10 and behold it appears
that so far from being in conflict with south.
ern views and opinions, he had actually
founded himself upon the very doctrine of
all doctrines that is treasured in the hearts
core of Southern bosoms The enemies of
Judge Douglas may therefore he considered
beaten on every part of the ground. In their
anxiety to read him out of the Democratic
party. they have only succeeded in reading
themselves so far out that they never can get
back without full acknowledgment that
they are wrong and Douglas right.
That we are not making mere idle asser.
tions all our readers are aware who have
us through the different stages of
this controversy and have read the evidences,
which we have from time to time published
1t will be recollected that we have given ex
tracts from the speeches of Mr. Orr. of South
Carolina; Mr.. Stephens, of Georgia; Mr..
Smith, Of Tennessee and other Southern
statesmen in Congress, in 1854, during the
discussion of the Kansas Nebraska Bill.
which positively assert the identical propc-
sition laid down by Judge Douglas in his
Freeport speech. 1t will also be recc llected
that coming down to a much later period,
we gave an extract from speech of Hon.
jeff Davis, of Mississippi, delivered in Au.
gust last, in which he distinctly avows the
same legal fact, principle and proposition
which are contained in the Freeport speech
In addition to all this, we have published
copious extracts from leading southern papers
which claim that that same ground is the
basis upon which the South expects to main
tain the constitutional rights of her citizens
in the Territories of the Union. While on
this point, we may as well give, here, Judge
Douglas subsequent and further explanation
of his proposition in the Freeport speech,
which he did in an argument of gigantic
strength and eloquence at the city of Gales
burg, Illinois In the course of that argu-
ment he said
"But MIR. Lincoln cannot be made to under
stand, and those who are determined to vote for
HIM, no matter whether he is prO-slavery man
IN the South and negro equality advocate in the
North, cannot be made to understand how it is
that IN Territory the people can do as they
please on the slavery question under the bred
Scott decision. Let us see whether cannot ex-
plain it to the satisfaction of alt impartial men.
Chief Justice Taney has said in his opinion in
the Dred Scott case that negro slave being pro-
perty, stands on an equal footing with other pro.
perty, and that the owner may carry him into
the United States territory the same as he does
other property That's so. Suppose anv two
of you, ncghbors should conclude to q to Kan
sas, one carrying 100000 worth of negro slaves
and the other 100000 worth of mixed mer-
chandise, including quantities of liquors You
both agree that under that decision you may car
ry your property TO Kansas, but when you get it
there the merchant who is possessed of the IL
quors is met by the Maine liquor law, which pro-
hbts the sale or use of his property, and the
owner Of the slaves is met by equally uufriendly
legislation, which makes his property worthless
after he gets il there. What is the right to carry
your property into the Territory worth to either
when uufriendy legislation in the Territory rem
ders it worthless after you get it there? The
Shareholder when he gets his slaves there finds
that THERE IN NO LOCAL LAW to protect him in
holding them, NO SLAVE CODE, NO POLICE REGULA-
TONS MAINTAINING AND SUPPORTING HIM IN HIS
RIGHT aud he discovers at once that the absence
of such friendly legislation excludes his property
from the Territory just as irresstibly If there
was positive constitutional prohibition exclud-
ing it.
Thus you find it is with any kind of property
IN Territory, il depends for its protection on the
local and municipal law. If the people of Ter