Dallas herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1849-1873, 1859-04-27
Thn nrmoeraey and lhe Canvass Of lsGO.

| The Democracy ana ne CanVass OF louU'
The article in another column from the New
York Times We Reg Ia direct the speri i uttrn
tion of democratic readers The Times Is a vcr'
able and influential organ oi the Black Rcpuhli
:, can faction ans whatever IL may have 90 81 IL,
regard 20 the policy and prospects of its party,
should be- received with the crcii, due u tie
highest authority, In this brief hut explicit
statement We have an entirely inJclhgihle eSpo-
sition of che issues upon which the Black Re-
puh!io,ns expect tn triumph in lSGO,
4 Il will he observed the Times docs not rely an
the intrinsic strength of its own party Con
] sciOus of the antngonism between the radical
and conservative elements in It's organization,
and too candid tn conceal this source of weak
ness, the Times plalnly avows that il trcposcs its
hopes ni success in the next canvass ON the di-
visions and distractions Of its adversary, Nay,
more with lrankncss altogether unpaallel-
I ed in the maGiteSt0R OF political leaders, the ed
itOr proceeds 10 indicate the precise issue in res.
pect of which ho anticipates an rrccOncilahlr
feud among the democracy. Tho apple Of dis
cord is non Wt'rrCHiioH Never, rSr'n'ms the
Times. will the Democracy 0f tho North agree
thnt Congress shall intcrpoSc hv positive action
for the protection and propagation of slavery I;
and never, on the other hanu, will the Democra-
cy of the South Ice content tn abide the pOpulnr
verdi 4 and the Judgment of the courts hut will
demand Federal legislation for tine establishment
of slavery in the Territories.
/ Unqucstionahy If the difference really prevail,
rs exhibited hy the Times. the issue admits Of
no compromise and its operation will he Gi'nl
to the interests of the Democratic party But
we DENY that the Democracy of the South
are unwilling to accept the policy of non
Intervention Because n man rcpudiatcs the
principle of squattcr sovereignty, it does not
follow that he insists upon Congressional guar
antics of slavery. Coniding o local communi-
tics the general control of their own interests,
he may be conent with their action within the
sphere of their constitutional power. II the
tcrrit torinl governments in any way hctray their
trust. to the dctrimcnt of slavery the authority
Of the judicial tribunals may he invoked to re-
pair their neglect or to restrain their usurpation.
The stakeholder does not acknowledge the need
Of Federal legislation for the protection of his
property in the public domain. lie claims for 1T
the safeguard Of the Constitution; and he de-
mands nothing more than that the courts shall
define his rights and apply the remedy for their
violation. Ii ia not squattcr sovereignty. nor
Congressional sovereignty. but jUdiciai sorcrega-
~, winch he recognizes.
Again; The people OF the Sou h are not so
absurd ms to exhaust their energies in pursuit Of
an imposSlhility. With an adverse majority in
Congress. they perceive the impwCticahility Of
protective legislation for slavery il the terrific
rles. II they ask for bread, they will be given
a stone. If they demand Intervention, they win
get it-with vengeance. If they invoke the
aid of Federal legislation, they will contract an
alliance most fatal TO their interests. The iu
Wvfsiimins vfiii ma ms ioTity oF Nort7rn representatives
will emnl0v II for the restriction and supprcs-
sion of slavery in the territories Seward will
eagerly avail himself Of the indiscrect concrs-
sion to procure repeal of the pro slavery stat
utcs in New Mexico and the advantage will he
mIrsued. till slavery be swept from every spot
within the jurisdiction of the federal govern
ment
The noopln of the South are incapable of the
folly imnlied in the advocacy Of Congressional
intervention. The Democracy, especially, will
never commit themselves to 4 policy fatal to .
the interests of the South. to the unity Of the
partv. and to the existence of the republic.
And not only because Congressional ntarv"n-
tion for the establishment Of slavery in the Ter
ritorios is an absurd and mischevouS PROPOSE
tion. Int because the Democracy ofthG South are
soemnlv pledged to the doctrine of mon-i"tcr!ren-
t;oa. 1t was hy the recognition Of this princi u
plc that they persuaded their Northern allies to
repeal the Missouri restriction. They will stand
to the bargain. They will redeem their plight
ed faith They will he true to the covenant in
letter and in spirit. They are incapable of the
Injustice and ingrattudc of hetraving the allies
who rerilrd everything to relieve them of an ig-
nomininns ana oppressive "iSa"1hfv, Inc "'t o'
heroic fidelity has reduced those aI'e" almost TO
the last extremity OF Despair; ana Sha,' they
be still further hurdencd ana Illuminated ny the
exactions OF the very men IN whose
service they sacrificed ever hope OF power ana
preirrme"t! Never Inc democracy oil the
South, we repeat are lhe"fAnie OF such "c"chc'
ry.
And we beg the New York Times to be assur-
ed that the Charleston Convention will meet .
that il will reafirm the princirle of Federal non
with slavery in the Territories as
well as the States that it will nominate IA can
lidate. that he will be surrorted hy every State
in the Soutb and he elected next President Of