The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1858-11-04

The Freeport speech Of Senator DouoIAs,
delivered on the 9th Of August last, where
in he took the ground that the people of
Territory can by lawful means exclude
slavery from its limits, simply by neglccting
to pass laws for its protection, excited, for a
time. good deal Of remark on the part Of
extreme Southern journals, and those in the
special interest Of the National Admins.
tration. They sought to make out from
this speech case Of treachery 10 the con
stitutional rights Of the South. and vir.
tual reputation Of the bred Scott decision.
When, however, an examination Of the re-
cords revealed the fact that eminent south
ern gentlemen had before him enunciated
precisely similar sentiments and when such
extreme State rights men as JEFFERSON
DAVIS followed Judge DOUGLAS in reite-
ration OF the same doctrine, these opponents
Of Judge DouoLAs, incontinently dropped
the subject; and we have heard nothing
lately impugning his Democracy on this nc
count. Now, TO our mind, Judge DoUoLAs,
instead Of going too far in his Freeport
speech did not go far enough. For, while
he did not assert il as q right guaranteed
by the Constitution, or as decided by the
Supreme Court, neither did be deny that
the Constitution and the bred Scott deci-
sion protected slavery within the limits Of
the organized Territories Of the United
States. lie simply argued that, II slavery
could constitutionally enter a Territory, it
could not remain there without the protec-
ton Of local police regulations, and that il
the local legislature simply declined to foster
it by local laws, it would be practically
driven outside its boundaries
We goa step beyond Judge DouaLAs
and hold that the Constitution protects
slavery only in the States where it already
exists, and in such portions of the Territory
Of the United States as are unorganizcd for
the purposes Of local government. Upon
this unorganzed area the STAKEHOLDER has
an undoubted right to take his chattels an
mate and iDanimatc, and the Constitution
and lava Of the United States will protect
him in such introduction, and in the enjoy
ment OF the fruits Of their labors. But when
such Territory becomes organized into
political community, We hold that such right
Of introduction and enjoyment ceases, as a
constitutional right and that its further OK
is,epce must depend upon the will Of the
local legislature. And not merely upon such
will indirectly expressed by non action. but
tauglbIy, by the direct exercise Of the To-
cal law making power. In other words,
we believe that every legally organized Ter
ritory possesses the lawful right and author
ity TO foster or prohibit slavery within its
limits, by direct and positive legislation.
And we are unable to discover anything in
the Constitution of the United States. or in
the bred Scott or any other decision OF the
Supreme Court, which initiates against the
legality and propriety of this doctrine
We. Of course, express this M personal
opinion, and not as embodying the senti-
mcnts OF the Democratic or any other party.
We are pleased, however to know that
many eminent lawyers and politicians en-
terrain the same views, and we have great
| faith that full discussion will have tendency
to settle it, at last, as the permanent doc
,rinc OF the country, SO far AZ the constitu-
tional protection Of slavery is concerned.