The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1859-09-30
RrpuBLfcAN COUNTY TIoKBT

/. s. HARTS0CK.
AstUraey.t .t;cmesai Black against sen-
.... afer Dosgias
II will Le recollected that Senator
Douglas published ia Napers' Mag.
aai,e, a short t;ne since, an clabor.
ate article, setting forth his views on
popuiar sovereignty. To this article
Attorncy-Gvn vneral Black, of Buchsn-
aa's Cabinet, has made q reply.
Wt.cA, It inust be admitted, exposes
inost efectually the glaring incon
eistercies in Douslas' creed. Doug
las has taken occasion, time and
again, to endorse to the fullest exlc nj
Tho bred Scott, Decision. This noted
decision takes the folio wing position:
~'That Congress has no power to intervene
IN exclude slavery from the territories, and
that "the only power conferred by the Con-
siitution is The power coupled with duty OF
guarding aud protecting the owner in his
fights"
1.-THE powers over persons and property. Of
which we speak, are not ouly not granted TO
Congress, but are in express terms denied; |;
aud if U ngtess itself cannot do this, 1t will
~ .as-..s-J, - r--..---. sh-s :. ~a"ii MT
authorize . territorial government to exercise
them. II can coaier no power on any local
government, established by its authority, to.
violate the provisions ofthe Constitutions"
Jn his speech in December last, at
New Orleans, Douglas remarked:
"The Democracy Of Illinois, in the frt
place, accepts the decision OF the Supreme
Court Of the United States in the case of
bred Scott, as al auihoriiive interpi citation
OF the Constitution. In accordance with
that decision, we hold that slaves are pro-
per y. and hence on an equality with all
other kinds Of roper,y, and the owner Of a
slave has the same right to move into ter
rftor,, and carry his slave property with him.
as the owner OF any other property has to 60
there and carry his property"
10 his speech in the Senate of the
United States, last Febiury, he
said:
1--WE (Senntor B'own, Of Mississippi, and
Senator Douglas, Of Nliuois,) agree that,
under the decision Of the Supreme Court OF
tir~ cUi,-a e,a,os, si"~ss ero p'orsrty. stand.
ing on an equal footing with all other pro.
perty; and that consequently the owner Of q
slave has the same right to emigraie to ter.
fitory and carry his slave property with him
ms the owner Of any other species OF property
has 10 move there and carry his property
with him. Again: Thus far the
Senator from Mississippi and myself agree.
that slave property in the territories stands
on an equal footing with every other spe-
cles OF property
Taking the ground that he has
done, In fav' r OF the Dred Scott Dc
cision. and admitting as he docs, that
property in slaves, stands ION an
equality with all other kinds Of pro
p rty," he has exposed himself most
effsctually to the shafts of his Demo
cratic antagonists. Certainly, il as
Douglas holds, q Shareholder "has
the came right to move into a terri
tory, and take his slave property
with him, as the owner OF any other
property has to go there aud C crry
his property" the Inclusion is una
voilable that such property is en-
titled to the same protection AMI re.
spect. as any other kind Of property,
and hence that the Territorial Legis- /
lature has no more right to confis
cate property in slaves nor to pro
hibit the introduction OF such pro-
periy, than it hae to prohibit the in
PRODUCTION OF property in horses or
confscate such property. No one
who accepts the Dred Scott Decision
Ne correct doctrine, can consistently
advocate tho sentiment that either
Congress OF n Territorial Legislature
can prohibit or abolish slavery
But ths worst f,ature in Douglas
course, 10, bis dnplicity in attempting
to adsocste antagonistic opinions, tn
snit the two sections Of the Union
After what ae has said at New Or.
leans. at Memphis, and at Washing.
ton, We find him putting forth the
following palpably contradictory
sentiments In his speech recently at
Columbas, Ohio:
'Now. by the express provisions Of that
cIsuse Of the Constitution, a slave is a per.
son held service or labor in one state up
d0 the laws Thereof not under the Consti
sTina ~ tAs DATED States ---not under the
laws 81 the United Stsies--pot by virtue oil
suy tehssai suthsfity, but in q state, under
shs laws thereof. WHAT BECOMES OFl
THta n8wLF DISCO vEkRO DOCrRINEl
TMArSLAyERYE EXISTS SEvERYWHERE
Ny UeTUR OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
Ot tue UNtr6O STATESf lr Is DE-
MED eyTHE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. 1
Every ehssd vhs bee e~es sssl che insirs.
meat, kscws that sisvery 10 the creature oil
fhe 'oeai law ssnctions and establishes II,
al es,sts ~ state under the ia.s tAereof;
Asa tassnspch % . territory is state wlthioI
the meaning u the clause OF the Oopst,
f'es, slavery may exist in . territory t.el
.ssms o. u . state. under the laws ther.of.
hsssse. " the people Of Q terf,tory desire
shFetv. al they hsve 70 do is 10 pass laws
s4ncpep,Pg spd PROTECTING IL. II they do
net tme slsye1Y, ell they have b % Is 10
w'essosa ph asgisistion and sll pss,ectSos. -
SMiti sach . record how can D,sg.
aas expect 70 re,aiu the coni lence Of
csnJid psope either N nth or Souihi