Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1859-09-21

..n..o. i..:4 ;, ssesa kl.l.sss.s-
ken for public ne VIII Cd @ieA "9vC-
s ood e every 91 =" "as q
the Constitution b rslfgiouslT morally, and p6liti
cally bound to regard them a such. Does anybody
suppose that Constitution which acknowledges the
sac1eneas Of private property 70 fully, would want
only destroy that right not by any words thst are
found II 4 but mere implication from ia general
principles? Il might % well be asserted thst The
geperal prindpla of ths Constitution saxs 1A.saaa
Montgomery license to steal horses IN The valley II
4 Tie sup,suuse css;s u 'lhs United States ha.
decided the question After solemn srEument and
careful consideration, that august tribunal hsa
nounccd its opinion TO he that slaveholdeT. by 60
ing into Federal Territory, docs not loe the title
he had to his negro in the State from which be came.
In former times, question Of constitutional av
once decided by the Supreme Court vas res.rdedas
settled by all except that little band Of rhald ind.
dels, who meet periodically ct Boston TO blaspheme
the religion and plot rebellion against The laws Of
thecountry. The leaders Of the 70 called republican
party have lately been treading cose On the heck of
their abolition bsethren; but Il h devoptly to lie
hoped that Mr.. Douglas has no intention to follow
their example In cave he il elected President, he
must see the laws faithfully executed Does he
think be can keep that oath BY fighting the jadiei.
airy!
8. The legislative history Of the country shows
that al the great statesmen of former times enter.
tanned the same opinion and held Il 10 firmly thst
they did not even think Of any other. u was uni
versally taken for granted that slave remained
slave and free man freeman. in the new Terrific
ries until . change was msde in their condition by
some positive enactment Nobody believed that
slave might not have been taken to and kept in the
Northwest Territory if the ordinance of 1857 or
some other regulation had not been msde to prohibit
It The Missouri restriction Of 1890 was imposed
solely because j: was understood (prohably b. every
member Of that Congress) that in the absence of 4
restriction. slave property would be a. lawful in the
eye Of the Constitution above SO deg 80 min ~ be.
low; and all agreed that the mere absence Of ~
striction did in act make il lawful below the com.
promise line
D. 1t IL right to learn wisdom from our enemies
The republicans do not point to any express pruris.
ion OF the Constitution nor to any general principle
embraced in It nor to any established rule Of law,
which sustains their views The ablest men among
them arc driven by stress Of necessity to hunt for ar
guments in code unrevcaled unwrittcn. and unde-
nnef, which they put above the Constitution OF the
Bible and call It "higher law" The ultra aboli.
tio"ists Of New England do not deny that the Con-
stt"tion Is rightly interpreted BY the democrsts o.
not interfering against slavery in the Territories:
but they dsdain to obey what they pronounce to be
ian agreement with death and q covenant with
hell"
Z. What did Mr.. Douglas mean when h. proposed
and voted for the kansas-Nehraska hin repeating
the Missouri restriction: Did he intend 70 tell
Southern men that notwithstanding the repeal az
the prohibition, they were excluded from those Ter.
rltories Is much ever? Or did he not regard the
right Of master to his slave perfectly good when.
ever he got rid Of the prohibitionl Did he, or any
body else at that time. dream that II was necessary
to make positive law in favor Of the stakeholder
before he could 90 there with safety. To ask these
questions is to answer them. The Kansas-Nebraska
OIL was not meant ~ dclusion or a snars Il was
we'll understood that the repeal alone Of the rr.,rc.
ton against slavery would throw the country open
to everything which the Constitution recognized Is
property.
We have thus given what We believe n he the
opinions held BY the great body Of the democratic
party-namely, that the Federal Constitution does
not establish slavery anywhere in the Onion; that
Il permits black man to be either held in scrvi,uc
or made irec ~ the local law shall decide; and that
IN Territory where no local law on the subject has
oeen enacted It keeps both the slave and the fc ne
gro in the statue already impressed upon them un
~ shall be changed hy competent local suslsosS,v
we have seen that this is sustained BY the reason Of
the thing, by great principle Of public law nv the
words Of the Constitution, by . solemn decision
d me Supreme Court, by the whole counc Of our
legislation by the concession Of our political oppo.
nents and finally, by the most important act in he
public life OF Ar. Douglas himself
MI. douglas imputes another aheurdity to his %.
ponents when he charges them with insisting "thst
i II the duty Of the judiciary to protect and main.
lain slavery in the Territories ~ifAowt ann Me sp
On the subject" The judge who acts without law
acs against law; and surely no sentiment 20 afro
cious Is this was entertained bv any portion Of
The democratic party. The right Of master to the
services OF his slave in Territory Is not against
law, nor without law, hut in full accordance with
law II the law he against it We arc all against IL
Has not the emigrant to Nebraska legal right 10
Inc OK team. which he bought in Ohio. 10 haul him
over the plains! Is not his title good to Il in the
territory "A It was in the State where he got it,-
And what should he said Of Judge who tells him
The possession Of his property without any law up.
On the suljectY'
II. We had right to expect from Mr. Douglas at
cast clear and Ineligible definition II his own
We arc disappointed Il il hardly nos
''o'e to conceive anything more difficult to comprv-
bend We will tsanscribe it again. and do what can
be done to analyze It
Those who believe that the Constitution Of the
United States neither establishes nor prohibits slave
y IN the States or Territories beyond the power Of
Inc people legally to control it but leaves the peo-
PIE thereof perfectly free tn form and regulate their
domestic institutions in their own way, subject only
70 the Constitution Of the United Statcs'"
Tho Constitstion neither sstabli.aes nor proSiSi,
'Arery IN tho Ststes or Territorial lit be meant
this that the Constitution does not presrjo roore
ltaer enancipste any mans slave or create the con-
1ition Of slavery and impose It on free negroes bat
caves the question Of every black mans ssnfws IN
ne Territories a. we'll Is in the States. to be deter
mined BY the local law, then VIC admit il for i d
nc very same proposition which we havr ksso ~
ng to prove But it. on the contrary. Il h n <,
Understood IS an assertion that the CONSTITUTIONS
'oes not permit master to keep his slave or free
negro to have bis liberty, in all parts Of the Union
snese the local aw does not interfere to prevent IL
hen the error is not only very gave ono, but L
also absurd and selfcontradictory.
me Co":t'faeio. neither essabiskss nor proASiss
Iccery s" tao Sats o. Territories bsyead lie pe,ser
y Tie people legally to control It. This b ssil,ns
. fona,No-P Point again. " cousss subject which
s legally controlled cannot DO beyond ,hc Dows, !
hat controls l. But the ouestion n wh.s $500;