Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1859-10-29
For The Standard.
SEN TpR DOUGLAS AND JUDGE BLACK.

Fur the STANDARD.
SENATOR DOUGLAS AND JUDGE BLACK.
MessRs. HOLDEN WILSON: We have read Senator
Douglass Harper Manifesto, and Judge Blacks
"ObscryationS" as also the Senator's stump rejOII-
der from Wooster Ohio, on the 10th OF Sept. last,
and we respectfully ask that the following reflections
of IN old farmer may find place in Your columns;
To say nothing Of the Seniors discourtcsy toward
Judge Black we do not know that We have ever read
any thing which smacks more of the dcmagosue, or
eyinccs greater degree Of sophistry and presamp-
ton than the manifesto and rejOnder alluded to-
Let us see what it was that Judge Black had
charged upon the Senator and in doing this We WILL
see in what the tseo .talschoods consist.
On page 10 of the Black pamphlet the Judge, IN
speaking Of the Harper manifesto, says "that he
,ouslas claims for the territorial governments the
right Of conscating private property on the ground
that these governments were sovereign-havc an
uncomfortable and independent power over all their
internal affairs"
In this Short sentence the Senator says arc two
"palpable falsehoods," for in the first place he
never did claim that the territorial governments had
the right Of confiscatng private property, neither
did he ever claim that they were sovereign or that
the territories were sovereign powers.
He SAYS further that his report in 1885, as well as
his speeches in 1s56-'57-'5s, which Judge Black
copied into his observations" all convict him Of
alsehood and misrepresentation, for in these he says
that a territory Is not sovereign.
Let us look at the proof which he offers to convict
Judge Black Of falschood and If the chalice is
not returned to his own lips.
To make good the charge of falsehood, he is con-
tent with reproducing the sentiments which (all
admit) he once held and had he not been confronted
with the opinions he then held and which alone drew
forth the observations he might have made out .
plausible case
But not so, he had written book Qor Harperl in
defense Of his novel and changed position which was
written "wthin and without and the whole burth-
en- of his task was to establish territorial
He contended in his Harper publication that the
people of territory have an unlimited control
private rights and that territorial legislature may
so shape its legislation to bring it to bear against
Shareholders and thus force them to submit to
'such unirendly legislation to leave the terrific
ries"
True he does not employ these words, but this is
the legitimate inference of the language used OF this
there be no doubt when it is recoected that in
his Freeport speech he says, "in my opinion the
people Of a territory can by lawful means exclude
slavery from their limits prior to the formation Of
State constitution. No matter what the decis:on Of
the Supreme Court may be on the abstract question:
still the right Of the people that is the majority at
any time during the territorial existcnce) to make
slave territory free territory is perfect and CON-
plete under the Nebraska bill"
Yet in the face of this he has the temerity to
charge Judge 81 Ok with falsehood in stating that
he Douglas) contended for the sovereignty Of the
territories
II further proof were wanting of the perfect reck-
lessness and shameful Inconsistency Of his course
and Of the truth Of all that Judge Black charges
him WITH it is furnished by speech he made in the
Senate in March last. I'm my opinion" says the
Senator, under the taxing power territory may
discriminate, as well as State" Ifthere is pow
of discrimination to other sropcrty and think
there is then it applies to slave property. If the
taxing power is exercised against any other species
Of property. it may have tendency to drive it out
and hold that such system of legislation NAV be
devised would efect,,ay exclude slave property"
and yet with this too staring the Senator in the face
he has the daring efrontery to charge Judge Black
with the blacklist kind of flsehood and SANDER.
simply for affirming that the Senator claimed the
right Of territory to confiscate private property
What on earth is confscation if this be not? Will
the Senator bubble upon the word con6scate. It
means to destroy, far the rights of the owner
are concerned for when it IS forfeited and adudged
to the public treasury" Task the Senator il he can
conceive of greater eonfisration?
Bot we will pursue the Senator still further and
show eonclusively that when Judge Black accused
him Of claiming that territory had right to con-
fscat that he spoke the truth and nothing but the
truth. "E
1t viii be recollected that Senator Douglas, in his
rejoinder to Judge Black. Indignantly denies the
chaTga and expressly states that no power feer-
a. State o. territorial" but for greater accuracy
will quote his own words: II deny that there is
any rightfnl authority any where in the United
States whether federal State or territorial, which
can confSc.te the private property of any ac aJd-
ing citizen" - -
l hare UNDERSIGNED the words "law abiding citi
zen to call attention to it to expose both the SO.
phstry of the defense well as the erontery of the
denial
Now who ever charged as much? Who ever
stated that the Senator's position was, that lam
abiding citizens property could be confiscated by
territory? Certainly not Judge Black, for he only
stated that the Senator claimed power equivalent
to confiscation, to belong to territory, and he made
good his charge by quoting the language of the
Senator, and lesitimately de1ucing what he affirmed
from the Senator's own premises.
That which the Senator here denies has never been
charged on him, and he ought to have known this
and to tide his face in shame for resortinr to such
kind Of ad cap tandum trap nut forth for no othe,
purpose than to catch the unwary.
The denial H. in reality, kind of politico "neea
tive pregnant" sorter So and sorter not so So
yet, when analysed it can be made so 80" all til,
time; for If ever it should further the Senator's in
terssts to prove that he claims the power the dena
in Question affords the proof by Implication.
The lsw-abidng citizen would cease to be 50
when he resisted the Senator's "unfriendly legisa
tion" would become refractory and non abiding
and Is such would incur the penalty which az tn
power Of "unfriendly Legislation" existedD woul,
be any pecuniary mulct they saw proper to impose
Yes, the citizen asserts what the Supreme Cour
has declared to be his constitutional rights this b.
itself would constitute him an offender, and subiec
MN to the penalty. Yes, II the Senator is right il
the power he claims they (ths people Of territory
may even make sayeholding crime, per a. B,
liey'ng i to bs na.um in =. they can make It ma
I'm th Psos'o.ss and annex any forfeiture or penalt
prits. fths BE- not Sovereignty. win the S:nssl
please to define IL What greater sovereign now,
can they exercise than thiss Sovereign means =,
preme possessing supreme dominion. excus;ve co,
troll whs.s, then, is the controlling power se go
ding TO the Senator's theory, Not in the Const;t
tion for be afirms thAt the Const;tut;on ra;tS
prohibits or establshes slavery in the States ~ IT,
rtotieA beyond the power Of the people lev.,,x
control il" He denies the power to be in he =
prems Court for he distinctly aaRrms in his F.. =
port speech that 1.-The people Of territory can i