Nevada national., 1859-12-17

the Kansas war, which has been the beginning
Of O sectional feeling more hostile than ever
before entertained and which, II not broken
down. will most certainly end In the utter
ruin Of the country. The gist Of the whole
scheme In passing the Kansas Nebraska Bill
was to give equal protection to emigrants
into the United States Territory from what
ever quarter of the United States or the
world they might come, and when portion
of the federal territory became sufficiently
populous to assume the responsibilities OF
a state government she should be admitted
into the Union. without cavil or conirover-
~ SO far as her constitution related to
slavery. This was the Interpretation that the
Administration Democratic Party put on the
Bill when they voted for il aud the interpre'
tation they still attach to II.
But, whatever difference OF opinion there
may be in the Democratic Party, 1t is grati-
Tying to know that at the bottom, they are
one and the same. Its strictly eonstitu'
tional party, as distinguished from the Re-
publican party which il fauatical and looks
10 the " higher law"
The difference between the Administra-
ton Democrats, and the Douglas Democrats
at the present time is founded upon differ
ent construction of the Dred Scott decision
and on this ground the administration men
have in our opinion. the dec ded advantage.
Mr. johnson admits that Congress has no
power to prohibit slavery in the Territories
OF the United States, according to the Dred
Scott decision, for portion Of that decision
makes this proposition plain. 1t reads thus:
upon these considerations ii is the opin-
ion OF the Court that the Act OF Congress
which prohibited citizen from holding and
owning property Of this kind (slave proper
| iy) in the Territory OF the United States,
north of the line therein mentioned, is not
warranted by the Constitution, and is there
fore void neither Dred Scott himself. nor
any of his family ever were free by being
carried into this Territory, even II they had
been carried there by the owner, with the
intention OF becoming permanent residents
According to this decision, II a man should
new settle on that beautiful tract of land at
the head of Humboldt River, with thirty
slaves, brought with him from Missouri, they
are NOT FREE, but STILL SLAVES. And by
what authority are they still slaves! Ger
tainly not under the laws Of Missouri, for
here this State has no more jurisdiction than
Massachusetts,. Then. If they are STILL
SLAVES. according to the Constitution of the
United States, it is only by the authority OF
that compact that they are property. Then
/ If they are property under the Constitution,
| they are property under the Federal law;
and IL they are property under the federal
law, Congress is compelled by the require
ments Of the Constitution. 10 use whatever
means may be-neecessary for it's protection.
This is as plain an example Of syllogism
position, so much dwolt upon by Mr.. John,
son Is an absurdity-an utter incompatible
ty. Slaves taken as such, from slave states
to the territory Of the United States. are
either property or not property. A neutral
condition is impossible. II they are proper
ty under the Constitution, as they are SO de-
terrnined by the Supreme Court, then the du-
ty of Congress is obvious enough if they
are not, why, there's an end Of it. This
sort of talk that Congress has no right eth
or to protect or prohibit slavery In the teri
tories, in our minds, is clear, sheer fun
merry. A something is either otoned or not
otoned that which is owned is owned by
authority, and it is the legitimate duty Of
the power which grants ownership, to grant
protection likewise.