Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1859-09-21

r. O. schencks abilities both as logiciaIi
and elocutionist, aud filling as he has some
high Offices in the Republic, both elective
and by executive patronage, concluded,
ION reading in the Gazette, that he would ad
dress the people at the Court House,) to 80
and hear him, expecting from his reputa-
tion, to hear fearless patriot, one above
the chicanery Of the small potato politicians
of the Republican party, whose stock con-
sists in misrepresentation of Democratic
men and measures But was sadly disap,
pointed, and be Hon. r. O. Schenck what
he is and but an humble mechanic feel
myself competent to successfully repute ev-
cry position he advanced, and intend to do
so in the course Of this article. He stated
that Douglas inserted in the Kansas-Ne-
braska Bill that clause, allowing the people
Of the Territories 10 legislale on their dOmes-
tic affairs, including the question Of slavery,
as scheme to advance his political inter-
eats in the south. IL that were the case,
why did he oppose the strength Of the South
on the Lecompton Constitntion, headed by
the talented Senator, Green Of Missouri, or
more recently inshis Harper's Magazine Let
ter, which l shall notice again In this arti.
cle2 Why does he oppose the views of those
southern fre-eaters, who would retain sla-
very in the Territories, by Congressional
enactment, in opposition to the wishes Of
the people there, il he is, as the gentleman
asserts, pandering to southern prejudice,
more especially on the eve Of Presidential
nomination. The facts are, that MIR. Doug
las is tho correct exponent Of Democratic
principles, as laid down in the Cincinnati
Platform, and the fearless defender of the
Federal Constitution, against the interpola-
tious ultraism, no matter from what section
IL may come. He next asserted, that Doug
las held the position, that the United States
Constitution, carried slavery into the Terri
tories Whilst he pretends TO know so much
about that patented letter in Harper's Maga-
zine, he must certainly have read It without
spectacles, and therefore committed the er-
ror of misreprssenting Mr. Douglas, or he
must have done it wilfully, with the intent
to injure him before the American people,
by asserting what he knew to be false, and
in proof Of what say, | win refer any
gentleman to that letter for the fact. He
next asserted that the strength of the DEM
ocratic party, is in the south, or otherwise
the Northern Democracy would be as anti
slavery as the Republicans. wish to in,
form the gentleman, that in 1852, Gen. Pierce
carried every northern State with the ex-
ception Of two, and that it was dur ing his
administration that the Kansas N Nebraska
Bill passed, which Mr. Schenok pretends
was for the benefit the South. In what
an awkward predicament he places himself
when he claims that Northern Democracy
would be as anti-slsvery as the Republi.
cans, if they had the power in the Eorth,
and when they had such power, they passed
what he pretends to call pro. slavery meas
ure. ! would like to hear the gentleman
reconcile these contradictions. The Demo.
cratic party is neither Pro-Slavery more
AntirSlavery, but in the spirit of the
Cincinnati Platform, allows the States and
Territories to settle the slavery question, as
well as all other local questions, to suit
subject to the Consultation Of the
United States.
In speaking of the Territory N Northwes,
Of the Ohio River, he made use of the ex-
preston Territories of the United States"
endeavoring to convey the idea, that the
Slavery prohibition in that organic act, ex-
tended to all the Territories Of the United
States 1t has been asserted by persons, that
it was all the territory the United States
then possessed, but find that the present
State of Tennessee was then United States
as it was ceded 20 the Union by |
North Carolina, on her signing the Articles
of Confederation in l777, and it was not
admitted Os State, until 1896, therefore it |
must have been United States Territory, at
the time the Northwestern Ordinance was
passed, and if 20, we know that Slavery was
not prohibited there The gentleman fur.
ther states that if Slavery was like other
property and went into the Territories by
the Common Law, that there was no need to
enact Fugitive Slave law that we of Ohio
can go to Kentucky, and recover our horses
that may escape there, and il Slavery was
recognized by the Common Law, slavehold.
ers would need ne special legislation. In the
first place, if we go to Kentucky to recover
our property, we must proceed according to
the law Of Kentucky, and mike manner, if
Kentuckians come to Ohio, to recover their |
runaway slaves, they must proceed under
the laws of Ohio il it were not for the rem,
ditiOn clause in the United States Constitu-
tion, slaves escaping into Ohio from Ken
lucky, could not be reclaimed, as slavery is |
prohibited in Ohio. In the next place, the
Territories are the common property of the |
nstien and every citizen may bring his prop-
erty there, and to hold it, subject to the ac-
ton Of the local legislature That slavery was
not in the contemplation of the Common Law,
is evident, from the fact that Common Law
to be good, must be 80 old "that the memory
Of man runneth not to tho contrary" See
Vol lst, page AZ, BlackstOne's Commsnta
riss. As African Slavery is not older than
three centuries, it could not possibly be
known at Common Law. But admitting,
for the sake of the argument that IL could,
would the gentleman receive every thing as
GOOD becauae known At Oommon Iaw9 We