The weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1858-1860, 1859-10-22

0st*sfS -. 49, - 49, ~ O8We
Me-. Doag,as hasine given 90 that 10 has
D6thing moro to say 10 defense Of his Hasper
article ON territorial sovereignty, and nc. new
explanations Of the doctrine 70 nake, II ID
b Know his Last word on the
pnhiock We End that il his speech ct
Wo6stef, Ohio, ON the 10Th ult., Ia which he
hook Up Judge Blacks reply to him and dis
ssctsd i rather savasaly. He accuses Judge
Black Of misrepresenting his opinions 10
several very important respects. Judge Black
might easily do this, without being convicted
Of unfairnesa. . Mr. Dooglas has not been
consistent with himself, and has not yet
worked himself ont into clear and coherent
visws Of the question The same thing ID
true Of Judge Black and the supporters Of the
administration gcnerally. The party adopted
the fiction Of popular sovereignty - TO the
- mere fetch, without knowing
or caring what il signiAed. Douglas
has insisted all along that it shall mean
something real, and in the attempt to give a
meaning to it has fallen into quite a. many
absurdities - his democrats opponents have
in their determination TO make 1t only an:
meaning sham. Between the two there is q
great deal OF radon beating Of the air, and
the blows reooil on their own heads quite a
often ashley tell upon each other.
Surprising MI. Douglas honestly to mean
that territorial governments may prohibit
and abolish slavery, Judge Black accuses
him, inferentially, Of asserting that terrific.
rial governments may "con6scate private
property" Judge Black declares that only
. state has this right Mr. Douglas responds
indignantly that be has never asserted the
right Of . territorial government to con6scstl
private proT erty, and 90 far from believing
il, he even denies the soundness Of Judge
Black idea that state may do it. Here he
has Judge Black swhere the wool 10 short,
to use phrase quito appropriate when dis
cussing the African politics Of the democrat
ic party. Possibly Judge Black made this
admission inadvertently. Judge Douglas
taking advantage of the mistake, pushes the
opposite doctrine t. . hazardous extreme
He says
II deny this whole doctrine Of ccn6scation.
brand it AZ dangerous and wicked heresy
deny that there is any rightful au.hority
anywhere within the limits Of the United
States-federal, state, OF territorial-which
can con6scate private property OF any law.
abiding citizen. Private property may be
taken for public uses, in pursuance OF law,
upon the payment Of q just compensation,
but not otherwise, The supreme court has
decided in the bred Scott case that the con-
stitution places the citizens Of territory,
90 far 90 these rights are concerced, ON the
same footing with the oitisens of the states.
,"Such o doctrine (ss Judge Blask's) is
subyersive of the fundamental principles
upon which all civil eovsrnwents rest
deny that it would be competent for any
States-whether federal state or territorial
Ito con6scate the private property ofa 10y:
al citizen, or TO convert tito public uses
without just compensation, even if there
were no constitutional provisions upon the
subject. On behalf Of the demo cratic party,
South as well as the North, repel the i'm.
putation o. . wanton calumny, that the peo-
pie of territory when they get constitu-
tional convention or the machipery of state
government into their hands, or at any other
time, con6scate the private property of q
law abiding citizen. No state or territory has
ever yet attempted or claimed the right
to exercise any such power and trust none
will ever regard the Black pamphlet sufficient
authority to justify legislative robbery by
state or authority"
Mr.. Douglas here treads upon dangerous
ground Does he mean to say that state
may not abolish slavery, unless it pur
chases the slaves on its soil, and would he
Justify the United States courts and the gen.
eral government in interfering to prevent the
abolition of slavery in any state, without this
purchase of the slaves? What other practi.
cal conclusion can be drawn from his lam
guage2 And this, unless we are greatly de-
seived in the signs Of the tiloss, is the ground
which the democratic party and the supreme
court are preparing to take, in pursuance of
heir great purpose to extend and naturalize
slavery. 1t is the inevitable logical sequence
If the bred Scott decision. If the constitu.
ion recognizes slaves as property in the
'ame sense and to the same extent with other
personal goods and chattles, it follows that
he abolition of slavery without due remu-
neration Of the masters 10 conGscation of
private property When the supreme court
inds it expedient to 60 forward logically to
his new extension of the dominion of slavery,
will MIR. Douglas and the northern democra-
y be ready to surrender both territorial
md state sovereignty to it, at the bidding OF
he COURT This is question OF some i'm.
and it may be upon us in reality
much sooner than most of US anticipate
1t is for want of clear ideas as to the ma.
ure of slavery that our politicians fall into
% many Inconsistencies and absurdities -
Nan is not naturally property, but the owner
# property. 1t is to be assumed of every
nan tLat he is free and self owning, and not
therefore, property, and he is only to be rec
'gnized az ont of his natural relation when |
le is placed out by positive local laws This
8 the doctrine Of all civilized governments
7 was the theory of our general government
Ill the democratic plot TO snbyert it and |
make slavery a national institution was con- |
eived. The true doctrine is that the con-
titution Of the United States recognizes |
lavery as existing where it has been estab.
ished by positive LEGAL law. The modern
doctrine that it recognizes its
xistenee in the territories is pernicious
nd vicious absurdity. Slavery does not
xist on any inch of Gods earth till it is
laced there by law for that purpose. The
making of men property 10 South Carolins
oes not make them property anywhere out
ide Of the boundaries Of South Carolina
he general government by allowing slavery
a the territories assumes the false
heOry that slavery is the natural condition
{ men, and that men may be made property
onsistsntly with natural rights, aside from
ositive law. So far was this from being the
leory of the founders of our government
nat they considered it necessary to provide
, the constitution for the recovery Of slaves
raging beyond the limits of the local laws,
nus recognizing the broad distinction be-
veen property in men and property in things
the one existing by positive law only, and
,e other by natural and indefeasible right
the one local and limited, the other uni
srsal The slave power has conspired to
lot out this eternal distinction between men
nd thlngs-the democracy has become it's
illing instrument in the impious work and
Is involved itself in maze Of absurdities
J the attempt to justify it. What we want,
sweep away all this iniquity and falsehood,
q reassertion by the American people Of
,ctrine held by the founders ofthe govern
ent, that slavery does not exist under and
: virtue Of the United States constitution,
1t only under and by virtue Of law, and
erefore can have legal existance only in the
stes establishing it Meanwhile if We meet
avery in the territories and 90 into conflict
it'll and defeat it there, on the territorial
vereignty" dogma, it 10 only because the
and the supreme court hav- s