, 1859-10-12

Attorney General Black has written reply
70 Douglas Wooster {Ohio) speech. 1t will
b. recollectcd that upon tho appearance Of
Blacks review of the copyright essay, Douglas
flew into towering passion, and callcd the
Attorney-Gcueral q lar and a rascal He
charged him with advocating the doctrine,
that "au the States Of the Union may cou{is-
cato private property "a doctrine which ho
denounced 4'as most wicked and dangerous
hezesy." Black comes back On tic small
giant with what ho calls IN "Appendi1" to
his former Observations"
Regarded from IN impartial standpoint it
must be conceded that Black has demolished
Douglas worse than pugilist Price "lickcd''
bruiser Kelly, tho other day, in Canada 1t is
square and fair knock-down, breaking ser-
eral ribs, and otherwise putting Douglas hors
> de combat. It is said that Stephen A is pre-
pairing rebutter to tho rejoinder; but it will
not, probably, avail him. Black il, very clear
i, m overmatch for him; ho is longer in
reach much heavicr hitter, spars elegantly,
countors scientifically, and in every respect is
the superior puglist- Douglas is probably en-
titled to the ''belt" among tho Democratic
"Gght weights;" but hs is no match at all
against 'heayy weight, such as Jerry Black,
Douglas hackers, trainers and bottle-holders
are to blame for allowing their champion to bo
pitted against fighter SO much his superior
in Hfyanrf1, mind md n,oj:t:o,,
We have looked in vain for tho appearance
Of tho "Observations'' or ":Appendix" in the
columns Of the Times. Why arc these iuport.
ant Democratic documents excluded from M.
pers protesting to be Democratic? The Tmes
claims not only to he a Democratic paper, but
the organ ofthe party in Illinois. Judge Black
is the Democratic Attorney General Of the
United States His oiIicial standing in the
party is certainly rs high as that Of Douglas
hlnEelE He comes from much larger State,
and ho is certainly entitled to respect and con.
sideration at tho hands Of all protesting Dem
oczats. There is wide and serious difference
OF opinion among Democrats on ayital political
question. The exact point Of difference bo-
tween them is this: Douglas holds that the
Constitution recognizes property in man, md
Tint Shareholder may legally carry his human
chastels into territory; but the territorial
legislature may by lawful process Of "un-
friendly Legislation" pcrs. cute his STARE prop
erty out Of it: in other words that squatter
Legislature" may legally exclude slavcs from
where they have lawful right to BE-" >
Black, on tho other hand, whilo agreeing
with Douglas TINT the Constitution regards
negroes merely as property, contends TINT
"no such power is vested in q territorial lecis-
stature, aud that those who desire tocondscate
"pEivato property Of any kind must wait IN
"t1 they get constitutional convention or
"the machinery Of State government into
"their hands," and, in support Of this propo-
sition, he argues that q territorial government
ais mcrely provisional and temporary, that it
"iz the cresture Of Congress, and may te
"changed, suspended or repealed at tho plea
"suro Of Congress" while Douglas claims,
that 1t is "eatitled to tho same measure Of |
e'tAN*t EAeAEEEa aAA 444ulutLlE1 u AllzA 6%1
government as soyorcign State"
Douglas devoses airty-aght pages Of fine
pf1nt IN Harpcrs' Magazine to prove that his
s4oe oi tho question is right, and that Of the
President and his faction wrong. The Times
published in full, with editorial laudations,.
this copyright argument Of its chief Black
replied, defending the other side of the issue
in calm, well-tempcred article. But The
Times refused to copy it Douglas rejoined to
Blacks criticism in strain Of ill..cmpercd.
furious inrectige, in lis Wooster speech, which
the 1Enes copied with alacrity, Black now
puts in rebutter, which the Times again de-
clines to insert!
Why does it act IN this unfair and one-s;ded
manner on an open question upon which its