Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-09-21
Ihe STANDARD.
from .he Washington Constitutioh.]
OBSERVATIONS

tn, as e1p7ysseG an Jumpers 1Nd9dzWe JoF oep-
4enF5er, 1857
Evcry one knows that Mr. Douglas, The Senator
atom Illinois. has written and printed an elaborate
essay, comprising thirty weight columns of Harper's
Magazine, in which he has undertaken to point out
the "divding line between federal and local authorl-
ty." Very many persons have glanced over its par
aeraphs to catch the leading ideas without loss of
time and some few have probably read it with care
Those who dissent from the doctrines of this pa
per owe to its author, if not to his arguments,
most respectful answer. Mr. Douglas is not the
man to be treated with disdanful silence. LIS
ability is fact unQuestioned his public career, IN
the face of many disadvantages, has been uncom-
monty successful; and he has been for many years
working struggling candidate for the Presidency.
He u.s. moreover, the Corypheus of his political
sect-the founder of new schoo-and his dlsci-
pies naturally believe in the nfallible verify OF his
words as part of their faith
The style of the article is. in some respects high
" commendahlc 1t is entirely free from the vul
gar clap trap of the stump; has no vain adjournment
Of classical scholarship; it shows no sign OF the
eloquent SENATOR it is even without the logic OF the
great debater. Many portions of it are very Oh
scure 1t seems to be an unsuccessful effort at legal
precision like the writing of judge, who is try
ing in vain to give good reasons for wrong dec-
cison on question of law which he has not quite
mastered.
With the help of Messrs Seward and Lincoln, he
has defined accurately enough the platform of the
socalled republican party and he does not attempt
to conceal his conviction that their doctrines are, in
the last degree, dangerous. They are, most aSsur-
edly, full of evil and saturated with mischief The
"irrepressible conflict" which they speak of with
so much pleasure between the opposing and en-
during forces of the northern and southern States
will be fatal, not merely to the peace of the country,
but to the existence oe the Government itself. Mr.
Douglas knows this, and he knows, also, that the
democratic party is the only power which is, or can
be, organized to resist the republican forces or OPP
pose their hostile march upon the capital. He who
divides and weakcns the friends of the country at
such crisis in her fortunes assumes very grave
responsibility.
Mr. Douglas separates the democratic party into
three classes, and describes them as follows:
First. Those who believe that the Constitution
of the United States neither establishes nor prohib
its slavery in the States or Territories beyond the
power of the people legally to control it, but leaves
the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate
their domestic institutions in their own way, subject
only to the Constitution of the United States
s'Second Those who believe that the Constitu-
ton establishes slavery in the Territories, and with
holds from Congress and the territorial legislature
the power to control it. and who insist that, in the
event the territorial legislature fails to enact the
quise laws for its protection, it becomes the I'M
perative duty of Congress to nterpose its authority
and furnish such protection
"Third Those who, while protesting to believe
that the Constitution establishes slavery in the Ter
ritories beyond the power of Congress the terri
toral legislature to control it. at the same time pro-
test against the duty of Congress to interfere for its
protection; but insist that it is the duty of the judi
ciary to protect and maintain slavery in the Terri
tories without any law upon the subject"
We give Mr.. Douglas the full benefit Of his own
statement. This is his mode of expressing those
differences, which, he says, disturb the harmony,
and threaten the integrity, of the American democ-
racy. These passages should, therefore, be most
carefully considered
The first class is the one to which he himself be-
longs and to both the others he is equally opposed.
He has no right to come between the second and
third class. If the difference which he speaks of
does exist among his opponents, it is their business
not his, to settle it or fight it out We shall, there
fore. confne ourselves to the dispute between Mr..
Douglas and his followers the one hand, and the
rest of the democratic party on the other, presum
ing that he will be willing observe the principle
of non-ntervention in all matters with which he has
no concern.
We will invcrt the order in which he has discuss
ed the subject and endeavor to show
!. That he has not correctly stated the doctrine
held by his opponents; and
2. That his opinions as given by himself
are altogether unsound.
/. He says that a certain portion of the demo-
cratic party believe or profess to believe, that the
Constitution establishes sladsy in the Territories
and insist that it is the duty of the judiciary to
maintain it there oithout any lao on the subject
We do not charge him with any intention to be I'M
fair; but we assert that he has in fact done wrong
to, probably, teentwcntieths of the party, BY
attempting to put them on grounds which they new
er chose for themselves
The Constitution certainly does not establish sla-
very in the Territories nor anywhere else. Nobody
in this country ever thought or said So But the
Constitution regards sacred and invi0able all the
rights which citizen may legally acquire in State
If o man acquires property of any kind in State,
and goes with it into sTerritory he is not for that
reason to be stripped of it. Our simple and plain
proposition is that the legal owner of slave or
other chattel may 60 with it into Federal Terrific
ry without forfctng his title
Who denies the truth of this and upon what
ground can it be controverted? The reasons which
support it are very obvious and very conclusive.
AS Jurlst and statesman, Mr.. Douglas ought to
be familiar with them, and there was time when
he was supposed to understand them very well.
We will briefly give him few of them.
L. 1t Is an automatic principle of public law that
right OF property, private relation, condition, OF
status lawfully existing in one State or country is
not changed by the mere removal of the parties to
another country, unless the law of that other coun
try be in direct conflict with it. For instance: A
marriage legally solemnized in France is binding in
America; children born in Germany are legitimate
here if they are legitimate there; and merchant
who buys goods in Now York according to the laws
OF that State may carry them to Illinois and hold
them there under his contract It is precisely so
with the status of negro carried from one Dart of
the United States to another; the question of his
freedom serytude depends on the law of tho nl,co
where he came from, ana depends on that alone, if
there be no conflicting law at the place to which he
goes or is taken. The Federal Constitution, there
lore recognizes slavery as legal condition WHEREBY
er the local governments have chosen to let it stand
unabolished, and regards it as illegal wherever the
laws Of the place have forbidden it. A slave being
property in Virginia, remains property; and his
master has all the rights of a Virginia master
wherever he may 60, so that he 90 not to any place
where the local law in conflict with his right
will not be pretended that the Constitution itself
furnishes to the Territories a conflicting law, Il
contains no provision that can be tortured into any
sembance of prohibition.
IIpn Al