Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1859-05-12

slavery laws of New Mexico. Nay, more; in
the opinion it is the duty of the courts to annul
these laws, us contrary to the principles OF the
Constitution. Did Garrison III Greedy ever pro-
mulgate doctrine more fatal to the rights and
interests of the South?
1t is worse than the Wilmot Proyiso /; for, as
that affirmed the absolute power OF Congress
over slavery in the Territories, there is bare
possibility that Il majority might employ the
power for the protection of slave property.
But the theory of the organ annihilates every
chance Of establishing slavery in the Terrific
ries; for, if tho requisite protection can be at
forded neither by Congress nor the local Legs
lature, in no contingency can the institution &C.
cure foothold in the federal domain. And
thus the South is incxorably restricted in its
development by the arbitrary and illegal opera
ton of principle propounded for the very
purpose Abolitionism needs no assistance IN
its aggressive energies, and will usurp dominion
over every inch of federal t. rritory, if lis EN-
croachments are not repelied by the positive
protection of slavery Just as all property
would be insecure if the laws did not defend il
against violence. The legal existence of slave
ry is anterior to, and independent of any legls
lat'ye enactments; but without specific re-
dress for the violation of its rights, its practlca
enjoyment is an impossihlity. The organ with
holds that redress, and 50 opposes an insupera
bic barrier to the extension Of slavery in thu
Territories.
Having demolished the n-intervention
bauble, under that definition the States proceed
to give its own views;
"Wo deny that either Congress OF tho loca
Legislature can prohibit Slavery in the Terrific
fies. On the conts9fy I'VE. maintain it to b.
primarily the right and duty of Congres t.
protect slave property within its jurisdiction
But, IN the interest Of the public peace as vel
as with view to practical results, the Sout
has agreed to remove the issue from the hall
OF Congress and to impose upon the local Leg
lslaturc the right and duty Of affording protec
ton to slave property in tho Territories. Th
junction of the federal judiciary is to detec
and repel any attempt on the part Of tho loc'
Legislature to usurpan unconstitutional power.
From this we get the definition of d" non-r
PREVENTION " to be, that Congress shall have n
power to protect Slavery, but that it shall an
must empower the Territories to legislate onl
for its protection.
Magofin, the Democratic candidate for Go,
ernor of Kentucky, agrees with the above, an
holds that Congress shall have no power, unles
the Territories refuse to pass protective lalrs,
which case Congress must protect Slavery.
Senator Brown, of Mississippi, has written
letter in which he also claims that the Terrific
ries are obliged to protect Slavery
Now this, with all its " distinctions withor
a difference does not seem to jbe with Douglal
idea in any manner. lie claims that Congce
has no control over the Territories in any maj
ner whatever, that the Territories have fu
power to enact laws abolishing Slavery or pr
tecting it, as may best suit them Then whei
is the harmony Of 1860? Will the South tax
up Douglas lis tho only available candidate wi
can possibly carry any portion Of the Nortl
give up their boosted claims of Slavery prote
ton and Slavery extension, or will they contint
the fight to the bstter end? This is questio
which naturally enough suggests itself at til
time, but we must remember that there is oil
other Congress to intervene, another year
roll round, and there are many things in Heave
and Earth that are not dreamed of in any p
lltical philosophy.