Mountain Democrat. [volume] (Placerville, El Dorado Co., Cal.) 1854-1860, 1859-06-11
rejudice into The pure empyrean Of enliehted

EOuIbhlyS OVC1ubo ~ WOutu 1uOTQ EOlby
demagogues and unprincipled agitators fruit
fol theme for defamation. Since disappoint.
ed ambition, 10 1920, originated with Rufus
King the idea Of Congressional restriction,
even to the present day, slavery agitation has
been the demagOgue's stepping stone to un.
merited preferment. Designing and unscru-
pulOus men, BY inHammatOry appeals to the
ignorance and prejudices Of the we'll mean
ing masses, have not only implanted antipa.
thies in the popular mind, injurious to the
best interests Of the country, but by thus
worming themselves into high places, have
lowered the dignity and character of our gov.
ernment in the estimation Of the world. The
present attitude Of the Democracy on the sla.
very question is eminently conservative and
just 1t asserts no principle that can right
fully do violence to the sentiments Of any sec.
tion oftbe Union. It affords com mon ground
upon which the great national mind can and
should harmoniously repose. would not
seentn0ty, therefore, disturb the present Ad
justment By the assertion Of new, though con-
Sistent doctrines. would not again furnish
material for the unhallOwcd purposes Of dem
agogues and agitators.
Whilst, however, am opposed to Congress
ional Intervention in behalf Of slavery in the
territories, do not for moment imagine that
be champions Of popular sovereignty, that
territorial Legislature has the right to exclude
it The assertion ofsuch doctrine Ia higher.
lawism in its most Objectionable Specification.
Senator Douglas, whose name is usually in
voked as authority by those who maintain
this view, admits the following predicatCs In
the debate referred to:
First, the territorial legislature is the crea.
ture Of Congress, deriving all its powers from
its Congressional charter.
Second, il is limited in its powers of legis-
lation by the laws and constitution Of the Uni
ted States.
Third. that "no such thing as sovereign
power attaches to Il territory while q terri
tory"
Fourth, "that under the decision OF the
Supreme Court Of the United States slaves
are property, standing on an equal footing
with all other property"
Fifth, that the owner Of tlIis species Of
property has the same right to carry il into
the territories and bold and enjoy it there, as
he has in regard to any other property.
Sixth, that il Is entitled to the same protcc.-
tion when it is taken there as any other prop
erty.
These propositions, say, are clearly and
explicitly admitted by Senator Douglas. II
they are correct-and It is difficult to per-
ceive how any one who Acknowledges the
binding force Of the decision of the Supreme
Court can controvert them-how is the doc
trine ofcxclusiOn by the territorial legislature
to be reconciled with them. To my mind
they are in palpabe contradiction. When
lawyers and statesmen speak Of W hat legis'
lature can do, they mean, Of course, what it
can LdtctuLIy do. 1t can do nothing other
wise Can territorial legislature, by positive
law, exclude slaves from q territory No.
WhyP Its whole power over the subject is
derived from Congress. Can Congress do soP
The Supreme Court Of the United States says
that it cannot-that such an act would he in
violation of the Constitution. Ofcourse there
fore, its creature, the territorial Legislature,
cannot. But can II not do so indirectly by
hostile lcgislationY No. And whye Because
to assert that a body with limited powers
can transcend them by indirection when it
cannot do SO by direction, is an incongruity
utterly at variance with all we'll established
and recognized rules Of consttu tional inter-
pretation. But can it not refuse to act at all?
Not rightfuly. 1t is as much bound to pro-
tect slave property as horse property, money
property, spinningjenny property, or Beech
er's civiizcrs, Sharp's rifle property. Senator
Douglas says they all stand upon exactly the
same footing. Suppose, however, it would
refuse to pass laws protecting property gen.
erally-slavcs need no special law-what
thenr 1t would indicate if persisted in, an
incapabiiity for selEgoveroment which would
justify, probably demand Of Congress, the re-
peal Of its charter, and the taking upon itself
the duties Of government This was tho po-
sition assumed by Senator Douglas in regard
to Utah. In one Of his campaign speeches, in
Illinois, he argued that for Congress to pass
laws for the protection Of person and property
there. would be useless, so long as Mormon
juries were necessary to enforce their penal
ties. lie would, therefore, advise "a total re-
peal Of its organic act, so that the country
might revert to its primitive condition prior
to the act of 1885," For what purpose In
order that persons and property may Be pro-
tScted and justice Gdmtnistersd, and crimes
punisAcd under the lGws prEscribed by Con-
0ress in such cases." This is one kind Of in.
tervention. TO use the military force to sup
press rebellion in territory aud to enforce
the laws in conjunction with the civil author
tiles when they are pOwerless to do so, is ano-
ther species of intervention. If the general
government have the right to intervene in the
affairs Of . territory in either mode to pro-
tect one species Of property, it has the same
right to intervene to protect slave property.
Whether It shOuId intervene and hOsO is ano-
ther question only to be determined intelli.
gently by the circumstances of the particular
case 10 which intervention is demanded. In
the case Of Utah l think Intervention was
justiRablc. Also in the case Of Kansas, two
years since, when majority Ofits people were
in open rebellion tO the laws In the latter
such is not now the case. The wild and reek.
less spirit of mObocracy and higher-lawism has
been subdued, and an era Of order and whole
some administration inaugurated in its stead.
There is no showing for farther or renewed
intervention in that territory. Such, in ef.
feet, understand to be tho views Of most Of
tho leading Democrats who participated in the
debate in question, and Of members of the
Democratic party generally.
There Is another point, however, connected
with this subject which, desire to notice. II
Is the assertion that non-action Is equivalent
to pOitive exclusion. Messrs, Douglas and
Brown were singularly agreeable on his prop.
OsitiOn. To my mind nothing could bc more
erroneous. Il may as we'll be asserted that
non.action for the protection Of life and limb
is equivalent to deprivation Of them. Itcan
a. plausibly be said that non-actiou would de-
stroy the relation Of husband and wife and "a.
rent and child. These relations exist inde.
pendent Of any positive local Law. They are
common incidents 70 American citizsnship,
and exist wherever the protecting shield of
the constitution extends. So too Of our rights
Of property. They are not destroyed because
of the aheenro of lonAl law In 1aAn the vast