Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-11-02
For the Standard.
SEN ATOR DOUGLAS AND JUDGE BLACK.

"ObScrvatonS," as also the Senator's stump relon-
der from Wooster, Ohio, on the 10Th OF SEPT. last,
and We respectfully ask that the following reflections
of an old farmer may find n place IN your columns.
To saw nothing of tn. Seniors iscoartesy toward
Judge Black we do not know that We have ever read
any thing which srnackS more of the deuagogue or
cvinces a greater degree of Sophstry and preSump-
ton than the manifesto and rcjoindcr alluded to- :,
Let us see what it was that Judge Black had
charged upon the Senator and in doing this we will
see in what the t'ro talsehoods consist.
On page 10 of the Black pamphlet the Judge IN
speaking of the Harper manifesto, says THAT he
Douglas) claims for the territorial governments the
right of contiscatng private property on the ground
that these governments were sovereign-have an
uncomfortable and Independent power over all their
internal affairs
In this short sentence the Senator says are two
s'palpahie falSehoodS" for in the first place he
never did claim that the territorial governments had
the right of conf>caing private property, neither
did he ever claim that they were sovereign or that
the territories soverei IN powers.
He saws further that his report in 1856, as well as
his speeches in lS5G-'57-5S, which Judge Black
copied into his observations" all convict him Of
lsehoad and misrepresentation, for in these he says
THAT a territory is not sovereign.
Let us look at the proof which he offers to convict
Judge Black of iasrllood. and see if the chalcc is
not returned to his own lips.
To make good the charge of Eaisehood. he is con-
tent with reproducing the sentiments which (all
adnit) he held. and had he not been confronted
with the opinions he en hsld and which alone drew
forth the observations" he might have made out
plausible case.
But not so, he had written book flor lIarpery in
defense of his no?cl and changed position which
written "wlthin and without" and the whole hurth-
en- OF his task was to establish territorial gntv
He conended in his Harper publication that the
people of territory have ain unlimited control over
private rights and that territorial legislature may
shape its legislation to bring it to bear against
Shareholders. and thus force them to submit to
"such unIriendly legislation, to leave the terrific
ries"
True he does not employ these words. b.lt this is
the legitimate inference of the language used OF this
there can be no donb: when it is rccolected that in
his Freeport speech he says. in my opinion the
people Of territory can by lawful means exclude
slavery from their limits prior to the formation of
State constitution. No matter what the decision cf
the Supreme Court may be on the abstract question,
still the right of the people that is the majority at
any time during the territorial eXStcncc) to make
slave territory free territory is perfect and com
piete under the Nebraska bill.
Yet in the face of this he has the temeritv to
charge Judge Bl OK with falsehood in stating that
he Houglas contended for the sovereignty of the
territories.
II further proof were wanting of the perfect reck-
lessncss and shameful inconsistency of his course.
and of the truth Of all that Judge Black charges
him with, it il furnished by speech he made in the
Senate in March last. In nv opinion saws the
Senator under the taxing power territory may
discriminate, well as State If there is pow
or Of discrimination to other property and think
there is. then it applies to slave property. If the
taxing power is exercised against any other species
of property. it may have tendency to drive it out
and hold that such system of legislation may he
devised as would cfectally exclude slave property"
and yet with this too staring the Senator in the face
he has the daring effrontcry to charge Judge Black
with the blacklist kind of flschood and SANDER,
simply for affirming that the Senator claimed the
right of territory to coEfscate private property.
What on earth is coHfiscaton if this be not Will
the Senator bubble upon the word contiscate. 1t
means to destroy, far as the rights of the owner
are concerned for when it Is forfeited and adiuigcd
to the public treasury" Task the Senator If he can
conceive of greater confs,ation.
But we will pursue the Senator still further and
show concl,l>ivey that when Judge Black accused
him of claiming that a territory had right to con-
tscae that he spoke the truth and nothing but the
truth.
1t will be recollectel that Senator Douglas in his
rejoinder to Judge Black. indignantly denies the
charge, and expressly states that no power feder-
al, State or territorial" but for greater accuracy
will quote his own words: IL DENY that there is
any rightful authority any where in the United
States, whether federal State or territorial which
can coni'cate the private property of any lao obid-
ing citizen"
have UNDERSIGNED the words "law abiding citi-
zen to call attention to it. to expose both the So
phstry of the defense well the efrontcry of the
denial
Now who ever charged as much? Who ever
stated that the Senator's position was, that a Mr
06Iding citizens property could he confiscated nv
territory: Certainly not Judge Black, for he only
stated that the Senator claimed power equivalent
TO contscaton to belong to territory, and he made
good his charge by quoting the language of the
Senator, and legtmately deducing what he affirmed
from the Senator's own premises
That which the Senator here denies has never been
charged on him, and he ought to have known this.
and to hide his face in shame for resorting to such
kind OF at cap dndum trap put forth for no other
purpose than to catch the unwary.
The denial is in reality, kind of politico "nega
tive pregnant, sorter so, and sorter not so So
yet, when analysed it can be made 80 so" all the
time; for if it should further the Senator's in
tereSts to prove that he claims the power the denia
in question affords the proof by implication.
The law-abldlng citizen would cease to be so
when he resisted the Senator's "unfriendly legisla
ton, would become refractory and non law abiding
and as such would incur the penalty which (f tn,
power Of "untrendly legislation existed) woull
be any pecuniary mulct they saw proper to impose
Yes ii the citizen asserts what the Supreme Cour
has declared to be his constitutional rights this b,
ITSELF would constitute him an offender, and suliec
him to the penalty Yes, if the Senator is right i,
the power he Claims they 1.-THE people of territory
may even make slaveholding crime, per Sc. Be
leving it to be NAHUM in Sc, they can make it mai
um prohibitum, and annex any forfeiture or penalt
they see proper, even to fogging the naughty cu
prlts If this be not sovereignty, will the Senate
please to define it? What greater sovereign powe
can they exercise than this? Sovereign means 81
preme, possessing supreme dominion, exclusive col
troll Where. then, is the controlling power, scco
ding 70 the Senator's theoryg Not in the Constit,
ton, for he affirms that the Constitution "neitht
prohibits or establishes slavery in the States or Te
ritories, beyond the power Of the people legally
control it" He denies the power to be in the s,
prcme Cests for he distinctly affirms in his Ere
port speech tsat the people of territory can, b
lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits pr
to the formation of State Constitution. no matt
It the decision Of the Supreme Court NAV be
bv tbs sage the restraints imposed upon a terrific,
us own theory' None whatever: Al