Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-06-17
From the Washington Southern Citlien.J
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..

nOW nIHDHTIlE"lt
t;ote another Gompromise ; the most fatal and
no-n;c;ons of all their compromises; and to ad.
NIT that the great principle announced in the
cincinnati platform-''non interference by Con
eress with ,slarery in State or Territory, or in
she District of Columbia"-means neither more
NOR less than total abandonment Of all right &c
protection of that species of property wherever
Congress is the Supreme power-that is spcci
6cally in Territories and in the District of Co
lumbiA.
The compromise is arrived at, very appro
p~riately, by an equivocation by assuming or
the one side and granting OH the other, that
non-interfcrencc with the Institution means
non-protcction of the property. But the insti.
tuition is one thing and the property is another
Congress has no power to create by legislation
the business OF cotton. planting in any Terrific
ry; but if q farmer plants cotton there, and i
the function Of a legislature be to protect pro-
perty, (Which nobody denies then it is the
plain duty Of CongresS-or Of the Legislature
called into existence By it, to protect the far
mer's property in the cotton he raises. Con
gresS has no power to legislatc literature into a
Territory, or legislate it out, but Il man who
brings books into a Territory ought, We sup
pose, to be protected in the enjoyment of his
books.
If Congress, or the legislature, its agent, re.
fuse to protect property in books, why then
Congress makes intervention against literature.
Non.intcrference with literature in Territories
requires that the legislature, or Congress, in
its default, shall protect 4 mans property in
his books. just so non interference with Sla-
very requires the legislature, or Congress in its
default, to protect a mans property i'll his
slaves.
No difference can be so much as conceived
between the two cases, except this difference
that books and cotton are property, but slaves
are not property. Are Southern men prepared
to admit it? And suppose the doctrine admit
ted-that the Cincinnati 'non-intericrencc with
slavery in States or Territories, or the District
of Columbia" means the denial of protection
to this species of property, why then it follows
that Congress is bound to withdraw all pro-
lection which now exists for slave property,
here in Washington, District of Columbia
Heretofore it has been believed that the power
and duty of our District Legislature THAT is
Congress- was not To force slavery upon us,
nor exclude it from us, but simply to protect
Us in the enjoyment of our property oil what
kind Soever. For the iuture-if this monstrous
doctrine be subscribed to by the Democratic
party - the Black Republicans may como i'll
and say-as they will-now abrogate all laws
of the District which enable Il Shareholder to
use, to control, or re.capture his slave: nom
intervention is the word. We sec nothing
that can prevent orr Northern breth-
rem from pushing the doctrine to this Legitimate
logical result.
The whole Of the arguments addressed to the
South in support Of Mr.. Douglas and his doc
trinc, rest on this single equivocation-that
the establishment or exclusion of the institu-
ton. means protection or non-protcctlon OF
the property: and on this further justification,
that
"conercs,ional legislation in protection Of slavery
in the Territories, irrc>istibly carrie, with It the power
- l~cgiSlatc for its exclusion
Now, there arc laws in the District Of Co
lumbia, enacted by Consress-adopted by
Congress from the State Of Maryland-whcrc-
BY Sl]ave-owners are protected in the possession
of their slaves, and enabled to control them:-
does this carry with it the power to rob every
man of his slaves? And if not. why not:
Because it is the duty and function Of a leg
to protect property and not to rob.
In short there is no shadow Of 4 prctcXt for
admitting that slave property should not be
protected in Territories-or in this District
except that one inevitable incxarable, irrevoca-
bic admission that shareholders are thieves. 1t is
simply the South pleading guilty-guilty upon
all the counts. Whatever our Northern broth
ercn have heretofore urged against Southern
men-that they are tyrants, pirates, fraudu-
lent dealers in other mta's bones and sinews-
all is summed up, and fully admitted in this
plea-that their property ought not to be
protected in their own Territories like the
property of other men.
BE it so: NC are extremely tired Of the sub
jcct; and begin TO apprehcnd that all our labor
is in vain. Why should we, who do not own
u negro in the world, disquiet our souls about
the status and rights Of slave property, ifthose
whom it most nearly concerns are willing to
compromise il away: If the South be content
to sec its ancient and admirable institution
branded with such a stigma before all the word,
what is it to the SOUTHERN CITIZEN: IL the
South, for the sake Of the harmony Of the par
ty and the Eighty Millions, chooses to fold her
hands and lie down to sleep, what have we to
do stirring her up with a long pole?
As the great Presidential campaign opens,
We find many Southern journals, one after
another, either falling silent OH this subject
altogether, or else deliberately embracing the
delusion.
The Mobile Mercury" and Mobile Regis
ter" after arguing the matter Il little while, at
last como to a gratifying harmony, as follows:
The Register" takes the ground that Doug
las is and always has been consistent with the
principles settled in 80, and in the Kansas bill
in 81. The Register" uttcrs an opinion we
have more than once advanced Mobile Her
curry.
In this admission w have granted the propo-
sition which It was the sole object Of our arti-
ton to truth from an independent, ultra South
ern Rights journal. which no Buchanan organ,
per nc, could afford to make.
1t may be that Georgia, South Carolina, Al
ALBANIA, Mississippi, Louisiana and the other
Southern States made a great mistake, when,
over the heads Of us fire caters, they decided
by popular votes at the ballot-boX, to accept
the principle of Congressional non-intcrvcntion;
and it may he, that those States find it their
policy and interest to review that decision and
change their front, and take another step in adj
vance. Let all this be granted, yet We main-
tain that it is not just in those who advise this
course, to turn upon Douglas as the scape-goat
for this new movement and correction of an old
error, and abuse him as a traitor, while in
truth he is only fairly and honestly standing to
the bargain our people then made with the
North Mobile Register.
Your people never made any such bargain
with the North get. If they do so now, we
exhort the North to proceed with the next
step-to insist upon the same sort of non-intcr-
.vention in the District Of Columbia.
A HORRIBLE CONFESSION.
TIE CASE OF CANSIBALISM on TIE rLAlNS.
Wo have published the narticulars of n case