The Nevada Democrat., 1858-10-13
Have the People of Territories the right to

for some years been deemed an open question,
and one yet to be determined. The doctrine of
the Democratic party, as enuneiated in the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, is that Congress should
abstain from interfering with the local ins.itu.
tions of the Territories, leaving the people free
to form just such institutions as suited them,
restrained only by the Constitution of the Uni
ted States If the Constitution conferred upon
the people of Territories the power to prohibit
slavery, previous to their admission as States,
they alone were to be the judges as to the pol
icy of exercising that right; but under any cir
cumstances Congress was not to interfere to
legislate slavery into, or exclude it from the
Territories. This is the leading feature of the
Nebraska bill, which was ratified by the Cincn-
natl Convention in 1856, and has become a
portion of the Democratic creed Even if Con-
gress had the abstract right to legislate on the
subject, the Democracy hold that that right
shall not be exercised The Convention took
no position as to the abstract right of the peo-
pie to exclude slavery from the Territories,
nor was it proper that they should. The ques-
tion was one of Constitutional law to be deter
mined by the Supreme Court, and not by par
| ty Convention.
Many have supposed that this question was
decided in the Dred Scott case; but such we
believe is not the fact. The question was not
before the Supreme Court in the Dred Scot.
case, and whatever opinions some of the Judges
may have expressed on the subject, they were
extra-judicial and amount to nothing. Chief JUS
tice Taney, it is true, held that neither Con-
gress nor Territorial Legislature could ex-
cude slavery from Territory, but the ruling
of the Court, which was concurred in by ma
jOrity of the Associate Justices, was made on q
far different ground. Whenever the consttu-
tionality of some Territorial act excluding sla-
very is called in question, and brought before
the Supreme Court for adjudication, then, aud
not till then, can the question be properly de-
Cided. The question at best is Of but trinng
practical importance, and is one upon which
Democrats have for years held different opn-
ions, without any one presumlng to call in
question their Democracy.
In recent discussion at Freeport, Illinois,
this question was propounded to Senator Doug
las by his opponent, and the answer of Douglas
has afforded number of old line Federalists
an opportunity to again read him out of the
Democratic party. Mr.. Douglas is reported to
have said
The next question Mr.. Lincoln propounded
to me is: "Can the people of Territory ex-
clude slavery from their limits, by any fair
means, before it comes into the Union as
State" l answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln
has heard me answer hundred times, on ev-
cry stump in Illinois, that, in my opinion, the
people OF Territory can, By la'yu! means, exclude
sldrsry before II comes in as State. Mr. Lincoln
knew that had given that answer over and
over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska
Bill on that principle, all over the State, in
lS54-'55 and '56, and he has new no excuse to
pretend to have any doubt upon that subject.
Whatever the Supreme Court may hereafter de-
eide, as to the abstract question of whether sla-
very may go in under the Constitution or not.
the people of Territory have the law full means
to admit it or exclude it, as they please; for the
reason that slavery cannot exist o day or an
hour anywhere unlets supported by local police
regulations, furnishing remedies and means of
enforcing the right to hold slaves. Those local
and police regulations can only be furnished
by the local Legislature. If the people of the
Territory are opposed to slavery, they will elect
members 10 the Legislature who will adopt un-
friendly legislation to it. If they are for it,
they will adopt the legislative measures friend
ly to slavery. Hence. no matter what may be
the decision of the Supreme Court on that alb
stract question, still the right of the people to
make it slave Territory or free Territory is
perfect and complete under the Nebraska Bill
hope Mr. Lincoln will deem my answer salts
factory on this point
The speech from which the above is taken,
was published in the Chicago Tribune, and the
reporter was of course bitter, and unscrupu-
Of fhn
have no assurance whatever that his words are
reported correctly. But even if the above are
his exact words, we can find but little in them
to which objection can be made. 1t is undoubt-
edly true that the people of Territory could
make it practically free, if they were so dis
posed, even in case the Supreme Court should
decide that they had no legal right to exclude
slavery. In the absence of local legislation
for the protection of slave property, the insti-
tuition could not exist in State or Tertiary,
where any considerable number of the people
were opposed to it. The Constitution of the
United States affords no adequate protection to
slave holders, nor can men be punished for tam
perng with slaves, except by local laws which
the Territorial Legislature can enact or not as
they see proper. And thus could the people of
a Territory, by refusing to pass any laws on
the subject, effectually and peaceably exclude
slavery from their midst, without violating the
Constitution, Notwithstanding the abstract right
might exist to hold slaves.
The remarks imputed to Douglas in regard
to Territorial Legislature passing laws un-
friendly to the institution of slavery, we are
inclined to believe are incorrectly reported. In
any case he could not have meant that the
Legislature would have the right to enact aud
put in force unconstitutional laws, for such
laws would be set aside by the Courts. The
words imputed to him are liable to objection,
but his meaning will be misconstrued only by