New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-10-13
NEW.YORK DAILY TRIBUNE THURSDAY, OCTOBER H. 1859

hs been. from Tie Intsliigeneer's own showing
constant, before Congress. That Congress poe
sesses and has repeatedly exercised Plenary
power to deal with it is one Of the points which
TIA, review also establishes. 1t wss, a. thstJoar-
nal confesses an attempt to relieve Congress from
duty which it had previously dischAFsed-'ae
duty, namely, of legislsting Tor the Terri,
tories on this subject Of Slavery-that mrs!
led to the idea, 60 lately as ten years ago. OF
the doctrine of Congressional non-interventon, ana
its application TO the Territories OF Utah aud New
Mexico. But this attempt on the part Of Congress
to avoid duty which it had previously discharged,
only involved both Congress and the country IN
greater endorsements than those to escape from
which this device had been adopted Congress
.iona non.intervention was differently understood,
or different; interpreted, in different parts OF tue
Union. In the North, it was alleged to mean that
the inhabitants of the Territories were to decide
the question for themselves; Squstter Sovereignty
thus stepping in to replace Congressional hesitation
ard incapsclty. In the South, it was alleged to
amount to an admission Of Slavery into all the Ter
ritories, on the ground that, while the Terri
toriAl condition remained, slaves might law
fully go into the Territory, ard the Terri
torial Legislatures had no power to keep
them cut. The next attempt to carry out this
scheme of relieving Congress from duty il hsd
previously discharged, WAS the kansasNebraskA
bill That bill Is everybody knows, was subject to
Ike double Interpretation So far from getting rid
of Slavery discussions in Congress, or out of it, 1t
raised new points of dispute, which continue to be
aetated to this day. So far as history goes, there
does not seem much encouragement to the scheme
OF keeping the question of Slavery 10 the Terrific
res out of Congress. The attempts in that direc'
ton, thus far, have only resulted in bringing bsck
the discussion with new complications and new
bitterness.
Neither will il answer to say, as The Intelgsnesr
does that this question of Slavery in the Territories
DO longer presents any real or practical questions
worthy to engage the public attention. 1t does
present real and practical question of the most
serious character-one which has been forced upon
tie Republican party ard which it is impossible Tor
that party not 10 meet. This question of Slavery
in the Territories, as now presented involves the
further, and vastly more important question, of the
legal position which slaves hold under the Consti-
tation of the United States Are slaves, under the
Constitution of the United States, goods and chat
tells to all intents and purposes-property differing
in no respect from any other kind of property-snd
in that character entitled to recognition and pro-
lection IS property ID any part of the Territories OF
the United States to which their owners may
choose to carry them This is the doctrine set
up BY the Slavery party, on the strength of which
the right is claimed to hold slaves in any of the
Territories of the United States. The Republi-
can party maintains, on the other hand, that
property in slaves depends entirely on the local
law It does not stand on the same
ground with other kinds of property recognized
as such all the world over. To entitle man to
hold slaves, he must be able to put his fnger on
some express law giving to bis authority the char
acter of a legal right. The pending discussion as
to Slavery in the Territories however little impor
tant it may seem to be, considered only in restion
TO the Territories, has most important bearing in
relation to the whole Union 1t involves the ques.
ton whether Slavery is National or merely State
institution, and still further whether property in
slaves rests, like other property, on the basis IF
National law, and is entitled to be respected on
moral grounds, independent Of any express
legislation, or whether it is mere creature of local
enactment creating no rights and imposing no obi
cations, except purely legal ones, which dissolve
and vanish at once BY stepping beyond certain
boundary.
In the position in which things now stand, the
Republicans are obliged to insist upon al act Of
Congress prohibiting Slavery in the Territories
Iu order to yiDdlcate the existence Of such power
in Congress, it must be exercised. To abandon
its exercise, especially in view of the bred Scott
decision and the Interpretation put upon that
decision by the slayeholdng interest, would be to
yield tie point of the nationality Of Slavery.
Indeed, it may be said that the Republican party
owes its existence to the new pretensons put for
ward within ten years past as to the position Of
Slavery in this INTERPRETATIONS which have mad
the efectual, though often disguised and some
times, perhaps, unwilling support of the Demo-
cratic party 1.-THE slayeholding interest really desire
70 silence the discussion of the Slavery question let
them abandon these new professions, and 60 back
to the doctrines of the fathers according to which
Slavery was local. and, for that matter, local evil
10 be got rid of as soon as possible.