Kanawha Valley star. [volume] (Charleston, Va. [W. Va.]) 1856-1861, 1859-10-31

liner times, We would like 10 know
when these statesmen lived. The ques-
Etion ii issus nsyer came before the public
mind ID its presentform until flSte date
ETWas itssver agilated before tie Missouri
iEompronnise !? Has there been any occa-
lsion is agitate it since, until the repeal of
THAT Unconstitutional compromise BY the
| Kansas- Nebraska acts Are. we TO be
crushed with the weight ef unknown and
tunreported authority He uses ian-
guage which may be read one way, and.
construed another. We will mot pres.
sumo intentionally /; not that the admins
ltration intends itas 2 plank tor present
land also orfutnfe use. We are unwilling
| 10 impute ID those in office, a want Of
knowledge and YET we are met by either d
want Of knowledge or csndor. He says.
15.sit was universally taken for granted ,hat
d slave remained d slave, and 1 free man q
freq man, in the neW Territories. until q
change was made in their condition, by
fssome positive enactment" And so again
we all agree and yet the proposition
throws no light upon the question, who
shall make the positive enactment. e 81
T. Who understood this truth better than
Judge d. Who saw il before him -
Was il not be, who, in The Kansas Ne
braska act, broke down ilie unconstitu
tional barrier and madeesthis principle
universal, as the constitution intendedlsi 1T
should be and yet Judge Black teaches
this principle of law to him. who made
il, and which "he,by spelling. learnt to
read" We are wholly al atloss to know,
whetherFthe Administration 8 article was
intended fol- Northern and Southern cen
sumption. We call attention to the fol,
lowing sentence, which rather resembles
the description given us. OF & contingent
remainder with a-double aspect. /" The
federal Constitution does not establish
slavery any where ID The Union. Il per,
mits. 4 black man to. be- either held in
servitude. or made free, as the local ldac
shall decide In q Territory where no
local iaa0 3upon lAs subject has been en-
acted, it keeps both the slave and the
free n1an.iu the status, already impressed
upon them, until il shall be changed by
competent local laathprity." The term
& competent local authority excludes
the idea Of Congressional indifference.
He cannot intend to confinetbe & conpe
tent local authority to the State Con-
gention Ito form q Constitution, or to the
State legislature, because this peculiarl
language had been used. 8 In a Tsrrito-
ri, where no local lar on the subject has
been enacted" Now, this language is
uninteligible, Of twas dictated from de-
sign, to speak 70 beth North and South. I
from sworn lips, through the same trum
pet, upon a Constitutional question. No
one can read. impartialIy, this perfect,
entire and isolated sentence, and not con-
fessathat 1t admits all for which We con
tend. 4 The Constitution, where no To-.
cal law on. the subject has been enacted
IN HE TERRITORY. keeps the slave and the
free Negro in the statue already Impress
ed upon them. '88t If this does not admit
that Constitution recognises the right
ofthe Territorial Legislature by>local law,
10 congrol the subject Of slavery, we are
unable to comprehend language. This
language was not intended as appli.l
cable 70 acquired Territory. with local
laws existing. Tits general and nquali-
fed. BUTT is contended athat the rights
Of property are sacred, and that the
Northern States never freed the slave
without making compensation to thefE
owner We are now lead away from in
applicable eaxionatiye principles, and in
troduced the doctrine Of policy and az
pediency. Certainly property in . State
is as sacred as it is in a Territory. Up
on the question Of .expediency, if the peo.
pie ina State, can abolish slavery, why
not the people in the Territory do the I
same thing. Yesterday they were Ter
ritory; to-day they adopta Constitution 7
tomorrow they becomela State.s Wasn't
as sacred, and wasn't the same
people as capable Of protecting itsyestersI
day as they will be tomorrow /. Will
they then be more 50 I? Does the trans.
action make any change Of, heart and
head !? tits the same people who act for
themselves, whether in State or Territory.
You reply you have no guaranty for their
legislation as a Territory. Neither have
you as a State and you have no right |
to q guaranty. from a free people. You
have this guaranty, if they are So biased
by passion as to commit legislative, rob-
cry, they are not fit to be free, they are
not fit to be members Of the Union Of
State; they are not capable Of adopting a
Constitutions !" with . republican form
Of government But tits mental yio- 4
lance onourpart to presume tl.at the peo-
pie instheir, Territorial Legislatures, will |
rob each other Of their PROPERTY, Even
Kansas, with all her intensife faaiihg on |
this subject. and goaded to madAegs and |
blood by governmental inlef slence,
would not do this wrong to any pf her
citizens. but made ample PROV ion for
the slave owner to realise fronaeAsais prop
erty. Butswe are contending. br5prinel
ciples and. not for expediency.5 We win /
leave questions Of detail and expediency
to our opponents. and two penny 6nanciers
to grope over, and weary themselvesswith, |
while we shall live IN high confidence,
in the integrity, purity snd capacity Of
self government.
+ Judge Douglas refsrenc TO Mr.. Jeffer-
sons plan for the government Of Terrific
ries, hardly merited the structures elected
fr,,s,o ~ 4, 80 His ohsoaf m