The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-09-10
RIGHH WITHOUT REMEDIES LET THEM GO IN,
AND THEN LET US ROB THEM.


assume ON any question. The constitution OF the
United States as interpreted by that decision, ac-
knowledges and guarantees the right of the citizen
to dslSves and employ them in the Territories of
the Union. If this right exists at all it carries with
il corresponding obligation, from the authorities of
tho Territory, Of protection in the enjoyment of it.
There ear 10 no right in constitutional, legal,
practical sense If it is not vitazed by laws protect
ing the exercise Of it, aud furnishing effective
edies for enforcing IL. ie sE
When Judge Douglas was called upon last winter
to give effect to the right Of the Missourans to re-
claim, their slaves escaping into Kansas, by voting
for the amendment offered by Mr.. Pugh, Of Ohio,
extending, among other general laws of Congress,
the Fugitivc-Slave Law over that Territory he as
tonished every democrat in Congress by voting
against the amendment, and against the democratic
members, in company with Seward, Wade, and Hale.
He is free to acknowledge the abstract right of the
stakeholder toa reclamation of his fugitive slave
but in avoiding to vote at all the original passage
of the Fugtiye-Slave Law in $780, and in voting di
recy at the last session of Congress against its
tension over Kansas he has shown his determination
not to make himself party to any act giving effect
and vitality to that right.
He now assumes in his Illinois canvass the same
position in regard to the bred Scott decision that
he has heretofore occupied on the fugitive-slave
law. He IL willing to acknowledge the abstract
constitutionality Of that decision. He is willing to
allow that southern citizen may carry his slaves into
the Territories of the Union, and hold them in bond
ago there, " he can; but he maintains that the
thorites in the Territories under no obligation
to protect him in his constitutional rights and are
at full liberty to thwart and nufy this right, and to
exclude" his slave, by refusing that protection Of
loca! law without which property be enjoyed.
He makes scruplo to declare that: whatever
the Supreme Court may decide as to the abstract
constitution not the people of Territory have
the lauftA means to admit it or exclude it as they
please for the reason that slavery cannot exist for
day or an hour anywhere unless supported by local
police regulations furnishing remedies and means of
enforcing the right 10 hold Slaves - concluding that
'hcnce, no matter what may be the decision of the
Supreme Court on that abstract question, still the
right of the people to make it slave Territory or
free Territory is perfect and complete under the
INtDI1Skd Dlii Illb FOStlou SoHnulutoii-
al right may be nullfed by ''la1ul Means This is
really worse doctrine than that Of the abolitoniss.
They denounce the bred Scott decision as bad law
and while acquiescing in it as long it stands, they
intend to procure its reversal if they They aim
to supplant what they esteem bad law by what they
esteem good and sound law. Judge Douglas, on the
contrary acknowledges the decision to be good and
valid law, but maintains the right of tho people to
nullfy and trample it under foot, though good and
valid The abolitionsts acquiesce in it, though con
siderng it unconstitutional ; he attacks and breaks
it down. though declaring it good and constitutional
In his opinion, il is lawful to nullify tho constu
ton. Na8
He contends for the right of the territorial legis
lature elected by the squatcrs to refuse the rene
dies necessary to protect the southern immigrant in
the enjoyment Of his property. If northern man
is deprived of his land, or robbed of his horse or
purse the territorial legislator will be bound by his
oath and duty to enact laws providing for the pun
sbment of the offender and the prompt restitution
of the property. But if southern man is set upon
and beaten by his negro slave Or if the slave is Sc
duced to run away, or is kidnapped, by white
neighbour then in the opinion of Judge Douglas the
territorial legislator is not bound under his oath
support the constitution Of the United States to enact
the legal and proper remedies for these wrongs If
the right to hold slaves in Territory is constiiu
tional right then is it the duty Of the territorial
legislature and courts under their oath of office, to
protect the enjoyment Of this right Judge Douglas
subserbes to the idea of the abstract right, but
laughs at the idea Of furnishing remedies and the
means Of enforcing" it..
The evident object of Judge Douglas in proclaim
ing this doctrine in Illinois, is to make capital with
the black-rcpublcan party. He gives the kernel OF
the Decision to tho South, but insists when before
the blaokTepublicans, upon doctrine which would
secure them all the meat. He would tempt slavery
into the territories by barren concession of the alb
stract right to carry slaves thither and he appeals
to the dishonesty Of the backrepublicans by point
ing out to them how they may rob the southerners
of their slaves after Turing them into the territory
We can imagine no position on any question which
involves profounder swinde more outrageous
cheat "Southerners you may como, bringing your
slaves. Abolitionists you may rob them of theil
slaves as soon they fairly settle themselves in the
territories" Such is the craftsmanship, such is The
honor, such the honesty, of Stephen A. Douglas
The abolitionsts of Illinois, however refuse to &C
cept this monstrous doctrine or to close in with his
IL Al A. m,