Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1859-03-04
The Souatter Sovereign

We published. lew lays since, tho re- ~ e a
debate in the Senate winch W. cnliin". eNclu-
sively to Dem, ra : or til 80 eh;u'u, t, 70" mem
bers of the ".v nst.onnl panty 81 Whth, 1t
was shown a. 4 'f'ir ,lews utsn t..' '"Nrl Vuc>-
ton Of Squirt 1ereign,y ar'r ns w,'ic auaft
as the .e. :, Il eminent qua q. " NrI"iEn--
for aiyuc,i ~. wtese defeat We r1U'Icmr cd
if not den .uucei--lulye d .A-, h,p,,cl TINT
his record WAS such that it n; uc 'c,,lry to
ask him whether he would vote tor law protect
ing .Harery IL the territories. lie ~oHd not do II,
nor could any other Northern D,an.' lie rcas-
serted his dogma, FIST aaneunccl in his ,ele1ra-
bratel Freepnrt speech Ugh long after he had
led the whole Southern Democratic party estray
BY the false glare Of his insineero sophi>t,rs--1i
"unriendly legislation the most ncariuu> trick.
and the most transparent and unworthy device
eve. practscd by any politician to deceive frank
aul condding people. Mc,sr.. Mason Davis,
Green,and other Southern Democratic senators
denounced thi. doctrine in unoeasurel terms, ani
express ed their willingness to suffer defeat rather
than accept it,
1t is strange that Douglas should concur in the
decision of the Supreme Court in part and yet
point involved in THIS controversy. about the sht
to holl slave property in the ter',nic'.
The decision of the Court was, that slaves Icing
property in the States, were no less neorcrty in
the territories and as Congress could IL. rcsuivt
this right Of property, the territorial governments
deriving their existence from Congress, cou not
d. it.
The language Of the Cour, respecting the res
friction, is as fllows:
And If Congress itself canno, DO th,---if it is
beyrnd the powers conferred on the te.r al gov
erlment-it will be admitted, pl"suinc. that
l. could not authorize n territorial gn,"s,H,cnf To
exercise them. 1t could confer ~ ~ .v,..t .u any
leal government, established hy II. authority, To
viola: It DIVISIONS Of the Constant, 49,"
Ihe-'es Ing Of the case & res up, ,,c grcund.
lst. 4.-t the constitution give the i.At to taae
sla' IS as well o'her property to the rr,i'orcs
2. That il Is not in the power Of Goa r,,s or ter
ritorial legislature TO exclude fruu u destroy slave
property, or any other species Il pr,,.r,y in the
territories, which by the laws OF any 9: The States
is held subject to dominion as property. The
Court further remark:
" And if the constitution recognize. tho
richt Of p;3i,erty of the master in slave anil
makes 10 distinction between that dcscrir,ion
OF property ana other property owned hy a
citizen, no tribunal, acting under the author.
ity # the United States whether it Ice II J,ytire.
executive, or judicial, has a right to 'rH such a
distinction. deny to it the lenef o' lie pro-
visions and guarantees which have been provided
for the protection Of private property against the
entertainments of the government Now as We
have already said in earlier part Of this opinion
upon different point, the right of property IN
slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
constitution. Inc right to traffic in it, like nm or
binary article Of merchandise and properly, was
guaranteed to the citizens of the United States, in
every State that might desire it, for twenty wears
And government, in express terms is pledged to
protec' lin ell future time, il the slave escape
from his"wnsr. This is done in plain words
too plain t. be misunderstood. Aud no word can
be found IL the constitution which gives Congress
greater power over slave property, or which en-.
titles property of that kind to less protection, than
property 'fany other descriptions The only pow
er conferred il the power coupled with the dut,
Of gu .rdine and protecting the owner in hi.
rights"
Here tie case is plainly stated, and we canno
perceive hnw any man, who believes With Judg
Douglas, that "Consress has power to legslst