The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-09-27

Excluded The power wa; nys.sS u he H TsG Y:
the gentleman VIVA. The practical importance 70 result fom
Ss a does O. doe. s1s
In reply 70 query nom Humphrey Marshall Of Ken,
tucky and showing the all important nature o. local
legislation, Mr. Orr said
Suppose party Territory inyegss away h slave and
Si%' suppose an navdasi RsrSors your whine Tho
S Il
laws TO enforce these rightss
Agein, he said
uI s sa
tHerfsrsd with By others.
Are no, the views Of Douglas and Orr IDENTICAL n Orr
right n s ssd ss On he sssc. Us%sss oSoS
pied by Orr We commend the extracts 70 the press gene
rally.
drawn 70 the opinions several other Southern men,
especially worthy Of republication As VIC innmated
above we took Mr. Orr tho trouble Of quoting
as largely as the supply might warrant but the
peculiarly interesting 70 the South, we make room
for two short extracts from Alexander Stephens Of
Georgia. and Sam A. Smith, Of Tennessee In June, 1885,
Mr. Stephens, In Congress, said
Although own own opinion Is that the people under as
o. the ~ Ss nave nsi ie Copd
on wns that sssy
they may sT f o.
may upon the subject when and how they
think proper
This Is stronger than Douglas Stephens gives posi-
tive opinion Douglas confines himself statement Of
what may be done, outside Of his WISH pro or con.
Mr. Smith, in the House Of Representatives on the 9th
Of June, 1855, said-
never regarded the difference of opinion between
n r. sn n %
~ the settlers had not the right TO excadc slavery Yet
joy e people In Territory viii decide The auesen amer
protect the institution Of slavery and majority psops
pass laws for its protection and Il VIII not go there IL
contrary they in favor of they viii pass laws for It's pro
to the popular sentiment of the people Of the Territory
II Senator Douglas for the exclusion Of slavery in the
Territories the Southern people, represented by
such us Orr Stephens and Smith. II Douglas Ian
guagc be tortured into such meaning, so can the
language of Orr Stephens and Smith; for
any difference Of fact between them We heartily com
mend the extracts to the consideration Of the Wendetcs
The above and comments find in tho States,
ard they deserve the careful perusa OF all fair minded
Judge Douglas at Frceport, spoke from the record,
pointing emphatcally the existing state Of legisla-
ton, and showing that without further Legislation the
right to carry slaves into Territory may be "bsrren
worthless and useless" He did not suggest any remedy
for the evil, We presented the point made by Judge
Congress should interfere TO protect slavery in the Terrific
We argued that what the constitution recognized
Congress bound 10 protect and that as slavery
left 10 the sation OF the Territories while IL could
be excluded the failure penal code for its pro
would be virtual and practical exclusion and tina,
Congress was bound to furnish such protection.
This was our position, and the extract from the
Joncsboro' speech does not initiate one iota against
il. Nothing but the Jaundiced vision Of the Union
would have imagined that such an extract could have
= settled y dispute We arguing for our
selves. Judge Douglas. We concnding for the
future and better protection Of slavery We have awaited
ourselves OF the fact pointed by Judge Douglas and
claim the rights OF the South to Congressional intervention
to and protect what the constitution recognizes
and hold, bound defend That Congress has no
power Of interference Intervention with slavery in the
Territories is the doctrine of the Cincinnati platform. This
contend, must that Congress has power to
Interfere intervene against slavery because whatever
species Of property the constitution recognizes entitled
TO protection and hence Congress not only hos not the
power interfere intervene against slavery but by
the spirit Of the constitution interference intervention
for protection is obligatory We close this with the fol
lowing from an exchange
The Providence (R - Post in relation TO the contest in
Illinois, contains article which conveys sharp rebuke
Of the disorganzers the democratic party Washing
ton In ausion to the Unions assaults Judge Douglas
for hs exposition Of the bred Scott decision the Po
says
The Union locks upon this as outright reputation
and defence OF the bred Scott decision but those who
have read the speeches OF Mr.. Douglas carefully will be
struck with the fact that the Union its quota
tons has omitted essential part OF his argument and
thus done him great injustice. The fact is that Mr. Dong
las the speech he delivered H. takes precisely the
ground that have taken since the bred Scott dc
cson published, and which, go far as we know, Is
taken by every democratic newspaper in the Northern
sstes-peshaps ought 20 say, in the country. That
position is that slavery Is only profitable where IL is sup
ported by local legislation and must depend, therefore,
upon local legislation for its existence This local cga
cannot have where the people opposed TO slave
" the people do want H. the Union will substi
what Mr. Douglas said al Freepor for the stars which
IN It's quotation, will perceive at once that this
| IL his doctrine.