Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-06-17

ever 10 oepy 80"
protection. Nc resolution was onefea ~ the
Convention implying any such denial, and
doctrine. unauestioned ut the time, and which
w. vell established by constantly recurring
nre,sdents, might well DO left without an ex
nress assertion, without implying ;ndecision as
to its validity.
This matter, like every other matter Of con,
stitutional obligation, was liable to become the
subject of judicial decision, and the action Of
the Convention, as we'll as the action Of Con
gress, must be regarded as recognizing the
competency of tie Courts to pronounce a de-
cision, whenever the subject should be brought
properly before them. But this necessary de-
ference to constitutional judicial authority can
not be regarded as IN admission that the obi
CATION of equal protection could be regarded
as doubtful or unsettled.
AS to the effect Of the bred Scott decision,
the following view Of the EXAMINER" is con-
elusive:
''This decision, which is now the law for the
citizens of all Territories, for all Judicial tribu'
mails therein, and for all legislative bodies, or
executive or ministerial officers in such terri
tories, recognizes the property in slaves as full
~ as in any other chattels, and gives to the
STAKEHOLDER therein all the rights and remedies
which attach to the holder Of any other pro.
perty whatever"
This by itself might indeed be regarded as
leaving the ground partially unoccupied. But
by the language which heads our column, our
cotemporary goes further and covers the whole
ground, asserting that this decision is a law as
Immediately and firmly binding on the Exccu.
tive, the Judiciary and the Congress of the Uni.
tcd,StateS, Us it is on the inferior and subsidia-
~ executive, judicial and legislative functiona.
ries who constitute the agents of the General
Government, appointed to reside in the terrific.
rieS.
Thus the EXAMINER concurs with us en-
entirely on the ground of principle.
We cordially agree with our contemporary
also in the opinion that the Democracy should
rally under its old principles and policy; and
not attempt to force upon any portion of the
party new articles of faith, or new interprcta-
tons Of portions Of crecds adopted by Demo.
cratic Conventions" Especially do VIC con.
graduate ourselves on the pledge which the
Examiner gives to oppose IN toto the at.
tempt to interpolatc the Democratic creed by
the introduction of r new 'sluatter sovereign.
ty" article.
But the Examiner" goes on to describe the
doctrines which maintain the right and duty
Of the General Government TO extend equal
protection to persons and property in the Ter.
~ritories, as another ''ncw article which our
contemporary is DESTROYS to cvc;udc from the
Democratic creed, Notwithstanding its undenia.
BILE truth and justice.
This is a position to which We 10 not hest.
tate to afix orr most emphatic disapproval.-
What! ~Anti-squatter sovereignty, as we'll as
squatter sovereignty, a new article in the Dem
ocratic creed: Has the Democratic party
existed for nearly three quarters OF n century
with no creed whatever as to the matter OF
governmental protection to persons and proper
ty in the territories? Must we plead guilty,
on this count, to the indictment Of the opposi.
ton, which arraigns US as a party Of no prin-
eipies?
Suppose, for the sake Of argument, that this
be SO; suppose that the Cincinnati Convention
did maintain 4 position Of INDIGESTION, in order
to await the decision of the Judiciary. Has
not that decision been given? And now that
the decision has been awarded, shall we refuse
to endorse it in its full extent? Now, that we
have not even the excuse, real or pretended, of
judicial silence, shall We continue undecided
q party without a principle:
But We deny the first supposition. We deny
that there ever was a time in the history Of the
party when this doctrine, which forms the basis
Of every treaty stipulation for the acquisition
of new territory, the basis of every organizing
statute for the erection of a territorial govern
ment, the basis of all federal or State action
with regard to the territories, the express
provision of the Constitution of the United
States, each and all Of which have been the
work Of the Democratic party, which that
party has sanctioned in their enactment and
as the fruit Of their labor. We deny
that there ever was q time when this doctrine
had failed to be or ceased to be an essential
part Of the recognised creed Of the Democratic
party. We go further. We assert that no cor.
party ever did exist in this Union,
which failed to recognise the same doctrine.
1t was never formally inserted in q party
say you: No. Its recognition has
been above party plato rms-simply because no
conservative party ever v%enturcd to question
It's validity. Concurred in by both the old ma
parties, it was never the subject of par
y division. How long has it been since a par
y platform first denied to Congress the power
o "a abolish slavery in the States A very few
this prohibition of Congressional
lsurpation, at all times and in every conserva
Two party, has been constantly recognised
IS an Indispensable article Of political faith.
Again, our contemporary desires to avoid an
ssus which shall obligc tho insertion in
he Democratic platform Of 4 resolution which
recognizes distinctly and to its full extent and
consequence the decision i'll the bred Scott case.
Here, too, VIC differ entirely.
The reason assigned for this startling expres-
sion of opinion on the part Of IL Southern Dem
,cratic organ, is the examiners supposition
hat any such formal and entire vindication of
his Just and equitable principle, will drive off
he masses Of the North, paralyzc our party in
he free States, and yield the Presidency to
Black Republicans"
We cannot admit this assumption. 1t looks
o us like adircct impugnment of the loyalty of
he Northern Democracy. There is n solid
mass" there which will never desert the Dem
'cratic party at tho South, unless that party
hall deny the principles for which Northern