Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1859-06-17

nent put forward by the Democratic Central Com
nittee, at Nashville, we took the ground that the
by the Southern democracy, of the
doctrine Of squatter sovereignty, and Of uncondi-
ional non-intervention, that party conceded all
hat the black republicans demand, and that in ma
king that concession, they offer the highest possible
bid for an utilization with the worst enemies of the
of slavery. Some may think that in pre-
Iering this. charge went too far, but reading
m article in late Louisville Journal, we became
satisfied that we did not go far enough, and now
mend our hold By asserting that the democrats of
the South who endorse the doctrines just named
go further than the black republicans themselves in
their hostility to slavery; and to prove it, shall
give two extracts-for which we are indebted to
the Louisville JourndL-one from the Chicago
Press and Tribune the acknowledged organ of
black republicanism in the Northwest and the
other from the speech of Mr.. Lincoln, the republi-
can candidate for the United States Senate in OPP
position to Douglas, delivered at Jonesboro. Here
arc the remarks Of the Press and Tribune and we
wish the reader to note the manlness Of their tone
and to contrast the same with the "cowardly" dem
agoguism that marks the unconditional surrender
of Southern rights by that party which claims to
be their especial guardian;
The Louisville Journal does not underrate the
intelligence and fairness of the Republicans of Hi
nos when it assumes that Mr.. Douglas latest posi-
ton on the bred Scott decision is more dstastefu
to them than the doctrines of the decision ITSELF
We believe that we know the sentiment of the party
in this State and declare that hey are ready 10
,I,Le fbs Tho eIu,e
ry question long as hey are The tn,o Of the land;
and nowhere in ranks should we look for so
mean and petty an expedent as that employed by
Mr.. Douglas to get rid of the operation of what the
court has decided will decide, to be in accord
ance with the Constitution and the laws. If it be
ultimately determined that slavery exists in all the
Territories by virtue of the Constitution alone let
the supporters of the institution make the most of
the advantage which his position gives them. We
may deny the jusdice and constitutionality of the
decision which so Orians; we may leave effort
untried to reverse and to educate the people, and
through them the Court up to what we believe to
be the true constitutional standard; but there could
not he any action endorsed by great and generous
party like that to which we belong so exceedingly
petty as that which Senator Douglas recommends
as the means of evading the consequences of con-
stitutonal provision. We do not believe that there
is or can be, by virtue of the Federal compact such
thing as property in man. But if it is otherwise
determined, and the Court rules as it must that
that property is entitled to the rights and privileges
of other property, let it be protected say we
though the consequences be to bring slavery into
the Free States. We have no idea of setting aside
the decisions of the most august of our judicial
tribunals by course Of procedure that would dis
grace pettifogger in magistrates court.
Do you not see with what boldness this black re-
publican organ asserts the duty of Congress to pro-
tec slavery in the territories under the decision OF
the bred Scott case, even though it should bring
slavery into the free States Find you the same
manlincss aud ready obedience to the constitution
and the laws in those miserable Southern locofoco
partsans who practically repudiate the bred Scott
decision and cOrrupty surrender all that it guaran-
tees to the South2 Now look at the just, states
manlike, and fearless comments of Mr. Lincoln upon
the trimming, time-serving construction of squatter
sovereignty and the bred Scott decison set forth
by the 'little giant"
Lastly would ask is not Congress itself under
obligation to give legislative support to any right
that is established under the United States Consti-
tuition? repeat the questions not Congress it.
self bound to give legislative support to any right
that is established in the United States Constitution?
A member of Congress swears to support the Con-
stitton of the United States and if he sees right
established by the constitution which needs specific
Legislative protection, can he clear his oath without
giving that protection q? Let me ask you why ma
ny of us who are opposed to slavery on principle
give our acquiescense to fugitive slave law? Why
do hold ourselves under obligations to pass such
a law and abide by it when it is passed? Because
the constitution makes provisions that the owners
of slaves shall have the right to reclaim them. II
gives the right to reclaim slaves, and that right is
us Judge Douglas says, barren right unless there
is legislation that will enforce it. The decla
ration, "No person held to service or labor in one
State under the laws thereof escaping into an
other shall in consequence of any law or regula
ton therein he discharged from such service or Ia
Dor but shall he delivered up claim of the party
to whom such service or labor may be due is pow
erloss without specific legislation to enforce it,
Now, on what ground would member of Congress
who is opposed to slavery in the abstract vote for
=, fugitive slave law, as | wOnd deem it my duty t.
do Because there is a constitutional right which
needs legislation to enforce it, And although it il
distasteful to me- have sworn to support the con
, situtiOn, and, having so sworn, | cannot conceive
that do support it if | withhold from that RICH
any necessary legislation to make it practical. AnC
if that is true in regard to the fugitive slave law,
the right to have fugitive slaves reclaimed any bet
ter fixed in the constitution than the right to hole
slaves in the territories? For the decision is jus
exposition of the constitution, ms Judge Dougla
thinks. Is the right any better than the other
= Is there any man who, while member of Con
gress would give support to the one any more than
the othe72 If wished to refuse to give Legislative
support to slave property in the Territories if
c 1emhcr of Congress, could not do it in holding
t the view that the constitution establishes that right
II did it at all, it would be because deny tina
decision properly CONSTITUTES the constitution. But
20 if | acknowledge with Judge Dsugas that this de
, cision properly ConstrueS the constitution, cdnno
!, conceive that woud be less than periured man
/ should refuse IN Congress 10 gre such protectio
10 that property as in lis nature il needed,
: Now add to these extracts, the declaration {
Judge Mclean, another distinguished freesoiler, tina
it is clearly the duty of Congress, under the Dire
Scott decision to protect slavery in the territorie
:. and you have overwhelming proof that the Soutl
j nrn lrnncrnts Nhn nhvnrnin snmnttnl snvnrnirnt