Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-11-23
Rejoinder to Senator Douglass Last.

the only points in Mir. Douglas last pamph. let that are worthy of attention. ' He denies that his views on '.sovereignty in the territories" as expressed in Harper's Magazine, are inconsistent with those of the supreme court in the Dred Scott case aver, on the contrary, that he could not have made such denial if he had not totally misunderstood either his own opin- ions or those of the court: for they are in direct conflict with one another A plain issue of fact is thus made up between us, als it is triable by the record. Letus look
 The court, after demonstrating in the clearest manner that the federal govern ment had no authority or jurisdiction to abolish slavery in a territory, proceeded to say what Mr. Douglas himself has quoted on page 530 of the maga inc:
 And y Congress 1self cannot do his- if 1t is beyond the powers conferred on the federal governmental will be admitted, we presume, that a could mot authorize c territorial q0Uernn9eW to exercise them. It could confer no power on any local govern ment established by its authority to violate the provisions of the constitution''
 This is in substance the very identical proposition which Mr. Douglas. on page 520, pronounces to be ''as plausible as it is .tallocjous" He adds, that ''the repeyse Of a is true as c general rule;:" and then sup portsshis assertion by another assertion the most singular that ever was placed on re- cord by any man having the slightest pre- tSsions to a knowledge of our government; namely, that Congress could conter upon territory such powers, "and ONLY such as Congress cannot exercise under the consti- tutionl' There is the record and 1 am perfectly sure that no tolerably sensible man in this nation, except Mir. Douglas, will doubt for moment, that it places him and the court in an attitude of perfect an- ta9onism.
 But then he says he defended the court in more than one Hundred species. It can scarcely be necessary to say, that arguments on a question of law are valued according to their oceight, and not according to their number. The connt of Mr. Douglas speeches on the Illinois stump was, no doubt, faithfully kept; but, when he claims credit for their orthodoxy, he must show something more than scores on tally paper. He might aq well come, with his Harper article in one hand and two-foot rule in the other, ready to demonstrate his concurrence with the court by showing that 1t contains two thousand eight hundred and eighty square inches of surface. Without reference to the superfcidl measure of one AOr the carefully enumerated repettions of the other, we may safely presume that the yJiF f,f ,.ol-c, |. better than that of his written essay; and in the latter Mir. Douglas not only opposes the court, but what is much worse, he charges it with holding his opinions. Tlis IS deep and serious injury; for, how would the judges of that great tribunal be able to look their country in the face, if hey had ever said, that a power over pri- vate property, forbidden to the federal go- vemment, might be delegated by Congress to a territorial legislature?
 The whole dispute Gas far as it is doc trinal dispute between Mr. Douglas and the democratic party lies substantially in these two propositions l. The owner of q slave may remove with him, as with other proper ty, into a territory without forfeiting his title ?. The government of a territory has and can have no power to deprive the inhabitants oftheir private property, wheth- CT in slaves or anything else.
 l. The :" automatic principle of public law" that a man, going from one country into another, retains in the latter (if there be no conflicting law,) all the rights of property which he had ill the former, is so universally acknowledged, that nobody thinks worth while to prove it. Atall times, in all countries, and by all persons it is taken and acted upon as a postulate cer- tainly had not, until very lately, the remo- | test suspicion, that any man on this side of China would doubt it. All the intercourse between the States, and with foreign coun- tries, depends on it. Without it, the travel CT must lose all right to his trunk when. ever he passes the border of his own State; and when foreigner lands among us. he may be robbed of his purse by the first loafer that meets him on the wharf Impor- tatlon and exportation would cease, and the commerce of the whole world would sud denly come to dead pause, if man might not prove his right to personal property in one country by showing that he was the legal owner of it in another from whence he
 
 mercial world what the law of gravitation is to the material universe; it cannot be abolished without hurling the whole system into ruin.
 Mr. Douglas does not admit this axio- matic principle,' nor does he deny it, though he writes great deal about it. But T he is unusually clear and explicit in his as sertion that "it has no application to, and does not include, slavery" insist that he Is utterly mistaken. Slaves being recog- nised as property by the constitution. and made so by the local laws of those States which have power to regulate their condi- ton, there can be no constitutional or legal reason given for excepting them from the operation of a rule which applies to property in general. Mr. Douglas argument in fla vor of such discrimination between slaves and other property is total failure, and no plausible argument can ever be made on that side, except one founded on the ''higher law" or the doctrines taught by that new religion, of which Saint Ossawattomie is the apostle and the martyr
 It has never been held, that any kind of property can be introduced into State or territory whose laws oppose the owners right; a liquordealer in New York cannot take brandy to Portland if the Maine law ' forbids it. So a relation formed in one country must cease when the parties go to another, in which such relation is illegal a.Turk may be the lawful husband of many Wives in Constantinople. but he cannot keep them, if he changes his residence to Wes- teln Europe or to the American States So 1t undoubtedly is with slavery; no man in his senses ever contended, that Nirginian, going to live in Pennsylvania, could take his slaves with him, and keep them there, Yin spite of the Pennsylvania law But if he goes to Kentucky, where the law is not op- posed to slavery, it is equally clear, that he retains all the dominion over them, which he had before his removal. The right of property. no matter where it accrued, con- tinpes to be sacred and inviolable until it co mes in collision with law which diyests - it's In a federal territory there can be no