The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-09-14


the case. That the whole decision of the court;
and Judge Douglas said nothing at Freeport to show
that bred Scott citizen, that the court had
jurisdiction of his case. Therefore, Judge Douglas
did not repudiate the decision Quod at denaoastra-
tun" Such is the special pleading of Judge Douglas
personal organ. Is it satisfactory to the country TO
the democratic party; to the SOUTH
The Times is ready to battle for the decision and
stouty to maintain what it did decide but il pro
against which all the dictates of an intelligent intel
lect rebel, by supporting the Washington Union
ain its assertion that the decision legalizes slavery in
all the territories and in all the States We win not
stop here to deny, again, that the Union
tended that the federal constitution egalzed slavery
in the free States; but we have said, and so did
majority Of the justices decide in the bred Scott
case, that slavery is legal under the constitution in
all the Territories, needing no law to introduce it as
no law that be passed by Congress or the terri
tories exclude itfrom thelatter. That is propo
sition which Judge Douglas and his organ the Times
denies. That is proposition which the bred Scott
decision aiirms. That is the proposition against
which" the personal organ Of Mr.. Douglas protests
for him. that call the dictates of an intelligent intel
ect rebel" In the teeth of such protest it is but
the baldest cffrontery for the Times to deny that
either itself or Judge Douglas repudiates the bred
Scott decisions it is in the last degree weak and
idle for it to attempt to sustain its denial by
refining and hairsplttng upon the technicalites of
the courts judgment.
In connexion with this preposterous attempt of
the Chicago Times to reconcile Judge Douglass
quatersovereignty doctrines with the decision of
the Supreme Court in the bred Scott case we cannot
help referring to late article of the Richmond En-
quirer which we interpret indited ironically on
Judge Douglass declarations at Freeport. The En-
quirer sympathizes with Gov. Wise and Hon Mr.
Alison, of Virginia. in the poor opinion those gen.
tenen known to entertain of the Kansas ebras-
ka bill. For year more the Enquirer has been
disposed very freely to criticize that bill, not only as
furnishing protection to shareholders in the Ter
ritories but as laying them under positive disad-
vantages therein through the operation of the Bad
ger clause. #@a
The Enquirer regards the declarations of Judge
Douglas at Freeport confession, by the author
of the bill himself of all that it has beon saying in
complaint of the defects of the Kansas Nebraska act
Abiding to these defects it charges that members
of Congress have no right to shift the responsibility
from their own shoulders to that of their territorial
delegates" of providing positive Legislation for the
protection rights in the Territories which the con-
stituton acknowledges, but which the Kansas-Ne-
braska act does not secure. It, therefore, calls,
with great deal of apparent confidence but archly
concealed sarcasm, upon Judge Douglas and Con-
gress "to intervene to protect slavery in the Terri
tories" from the evils of such 'unfrendly legisa-
tom on the part of the territorial legislatures
as Judge Douglas confesses is not provided against
by his own Nebraska-Kansas bill. In other words
the Enquirer seems to defend Judge Douglas in
his Freeport speech by assailing the alleged defects
of his Nebraska Kansas bill. '''1