The Nevada journal., 1859-01-07
The Democrat states it would puzzle

even a hair-spli;ting politician to d'scov-
er particle of difference between the
position of Jefferson Davis and Judge
Douglas, on the power and right pertain
ing to the people Of a Territory to pro-
hibit slavery. We are not disposed to
make the nice determinations required
of "hair-splitting politician" but We
can assure the Democrat there is wide
difference between Doaglas and Davis,
on this question, as we shall proceed to
show.
Davis holds to the right of slave
owner to retain his property in Kansas
whether the people of the Territory, or
the Legislature thereof be urfriendly or
not. But he says if the people fail to
enact laws for the protection of slave
property the risk to the slave holder in
taking his slaves among an unfriendly
people would be so great as to amount
to practical prohibition, though the
right would still remain.
Douglas on the other hand, claims
that "tho people of a Territory, like those
ofa State, shall decide for themselves
whether slavery shall, or shall not, exist
withia their limits" In his Alton speech
he quotes Buchanan's letter of accept
ance approvingly in Which this express
sion is used. Now the people of a state
have the power, it is conceded, at any
time to abolish slavery by positive en-
actment. If the people of the Terrific
ry have the same right, it follows of
course they can prohibit slavery, or, the
holding of slave property, by positive
law. This we conceive to be the posi-
ton of Judge Douglas. We are quite
sure of it, else what does he mean by the
following sentences in his New Orleans
speech:
when you arrive in the Territory,
and open them (slayosi for sale and use,
they Immediately become subject to the
local law, and if that local law should,
unfortunately, he unfricndly like the
Maine liquor law, or other kindred enact
ments, it will be the misfortune of the
owner of the property"
Douglas here speaks of positive enact
ments-prohi6itory la,cs, 'like the Maine
liquor law, and other hb.dfcd enact
ments"-not of the mant of proteetson
to which Davis alludes. 1t is true
Douglas beats the devil around the barn
in the New Orleans speech, and seems
desirous of leaving an impression on his
hearers that his position and that of JEFF
ferson Davis are identical, but if Ian
guage is made to convey ideas they are
not so. The difference is plain-Davis
claims the right to hold slave property
in Territory under all circumstances,
though it may be a barren right from the
disposition of the people. Douglas ad-
mits specifically the right of tho people
of Territory, like those Of a State. to
prohibit slavery by positive prob ibitory
law, like the Maine Liquor law-or VIC
don't understand him. Which position
is the most consistent Let us see where
the arguments of Judge Douglas leads
him.
In lis Alton speech he says:
81 hold that there is no principle on
earth more sacred to all the friends of
freedom, than that which says that no
institution, no law, 10 constitution should
be forced on an unwilling people contra
ry to their wishes"
Was not the fugitive slave law rcpul-
sive to many states in this Union contain
ing ten times the population of any Ter
territory, and are they not forced to
obey 1t !? Was a great and sacred prin-
ciple violated in that law The consti-
tuition of the Union guaranteed return
of fugitive slaves. The fugitive slave
act was passed to carry out a solemn pro-
vision of the constitution-so Judge
Douglas has said, and sustained the act
against, though it might be, the wishes
of people. The Dred Scott decision
construes the same constitution to carry
aud sanction slave property wherever it
goes. If the people of a Territory fail
or refuse to pass laws to sustain slavery
Jefferson Davis can fall back upon the
precedent of the fugitive slave law, and
claim the protection of Congress to an
institution declared by the highest tribu-
nal to be under the guardian @gis Of the
constitution.
He can claim a national slave code
for the Territories and where will Mr..
Douglas be found when this question
comes to be agitated2 How will he ar
que that constitutional provision must