Daily national Democrat., 1859-10-07


Now, deu tell We presume from the above
that the immense number OF Douglas men in the
Legislature will certainly vote against Weller.
That is a Stdrtijg1 announcement, and will GER
tainly unnerve the Govenor.-Erpress.
The immense number Of Douglas men in the
Legislature The Express is becoming quite
outspoken in its Anti.Douglas procliyities
since the election, 1t now pokcs fun at the
small number Of Douglas men in the Lcgis
lature Before the election, it tried to make
the people believe that the whole Lceomp-
ton party were Douglas men. How plainly
the cloven foot sticks out. The Express Is
not Douglas paper in any sense of the
word. So far from it, it already claims the
late election as a defeat of the Douglas party
and their principles. 1t will remain an
Anti-Douglas paper until another election,
when it will try to humbug its readers again
into the belief that it is great admirer of
the Illinois statesman. 1t is impossible to
find language to describe the pitifulness Of
such a course of conduct. And yet it is the
course of nearly all the spokesmen of the lie
compton party in this State.
The fact is these men are all intervention
lists True, they say they do not desire a slave
code for the Territories now, because they do
not think it necessary, bit, that if it ever
happens that slave property cannot be pro-
teeted without this code, then they desire
Congress to enact it, Now, nothing is more
certain upon earth than the fact that slave
property in the Territories where the people
are opposed to slavery, cannot be protected
except by an enactment in its favor by Con.
gress Consequently these men are to all
intents and purposes as much interventionists
now as they ever can be- And being inter-
ventionists they are no better than any other
kind of interventionists. The Republicans
desire to intervene to prohibit slavery, while
they desire to intervene to establish it. What
is the difference in principle between the
two? None in the world.
But, the Interveutionists for slavery con-
tend that the Constitution recognizes proper
ty in slaves, and whatever is property must
be protected Now, hoc does the Constitu
ton recognise property in slaves? Why, 1t
simply does not prohibit the ownership in
slaves. 1t simply does not prohibit the in
PRODUCTION of slaves into Territories. So far
as that is concerned, it does not prohibit the
introduction of slaves into States Ihat is
left to the local laws of the States themselves
and in the majority of those States the intro
duction of slave property is specially prohib-
tied. Under the Constitution of the United
States slave property is merely alloced Some
States have it and some have not. If it was
property, wherever it went, independent of
local legislation, and by mere force of the
Federal Constitution why then it would be
property as much in Massachusetts as in
South Carolina. The thing is an absurdity
upon its face, and consequently the Lecomp
ton argument based upon it is an absurdity
y great deal is said about the Dred Scott
Decision. What is the essence Of the Dred
Scott Decision on this question of slavery il
the Territories? Simply that neither Con
gress nor the Territorial Legislature can pro
hibit the ingress of slaves into Territory.
Very well, suppose they cannot Does it
follow that Congress is to take upon itself the
special protection of this class of property,
to the exclusion of every oth"- class If the
people are to regulate o. ass of property,
why not every class? Suppose the people
do not choose to license the sale of liquor,
which is property. Is Congress Constitu-
tionally bound to declare by law that liquor
must and shall be sold in the Territory Z
Slave property, which is of such nature
that it cannot exist without special legisla-
ton, must depend for its protection upon the
laws of the locality into which it enters
Congress is not consttutionally bound to es-
!, tablish those local laws. If it were then q
, slave code enacted by one Congress could
not be repealed by another, because a con-
sttutional requirement is not thus to b'
treated. But, everybody knows that eacl
Congress is supreme in itself, and may und
what preceding Congress has done.
moments glance will show how ridiculou
it would be to have Congress regulate thi
question Under slave code passed b
. Interventionsts for slavery in one Congress
Shareholders with their slaves would flock t
! a Territory. Just about the time that the
got themselves fairly settled succeedn
. Congress, controlled by men Of opposite opir
ions, would repeal the slave code of the for
mer and leave the Shareholders in wors
condition than if they had had no protectio
n at all
y The foregoing propositions are undoubte(
D ly true They cannot be gainsayed, and W
/ have merely laid them down, in the hurrie
t manner in which we have heaped them, i
order to show how absurd the doctrine {
conditional rvention-couditiona upo
the Territorial Legislatures refusing to pre-
- tect slave property-is, as advocated by th
Express and other enemies of the grea
champion of the sovereign rights of tn
C. American people in all matters of their ow
T. local coneernment.
'o INDICTMENTS FOR LARoENY.-The Suprem
Court of this State, in the case of the Poop
= against Ball. who was indicted in Sonou
# county for the crime of larceny and fouu
n guilty, have reversed the judgment and +
i manded the cause for further hearing on IL
+. gound that the indictment did not sufficient
ly describe the property charged to hay
been stolen The Court SAYS: