The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1859-10-12

services OF his slave IN territory Is not asAins
Gw nor without law, but in full accordance
with law II the law be against it we are al
against it. Has not the emigrAnt to Nebraska
legal right to the OK team, which he bough
in Ohio, to haul him over the plains? Is not
histtle as gool to it in tho Territory, as it was
in shs State where he got it? And what sho'd
bs said Of judge who tells him that he is not
protested, or thar he is maintaned, in the pos.
session of his property, without any law on
| the subjecL?"
II. We had right to expect from Mr. Doug
las at least a clear aud ineligible definition o
his own doctrine. We are disappointed. II
is hardly possible to conceive anything more
difi;ult to comprehend. We will transcribe
it again, snd do what can be done to analyzc it.
"Those who believe that the Constitution o
the United States neither establishes nor pro-
hibits slavery in the States or Territories be-
yond the power the people legally to control
it, but leaves the people perfectly free to form
aud regulate their domestic institutions in their
own way, subject only to the Constitution Of
the United States"
! The Consultation nsither e5tqJiShers nor pro-
hi5its Slaue,y IN the Stales or Territories. Ifit
be meant by this that the Constitution does not
p,qpria vigore, either emancipate any mans
slave, or create the condition Of slavery, and
impose it on free negroes, but leaves the ques-
] ton Of every black mans status, in the Terri
taries as we'll as in the States, to be detormin-
ell BY the local law, then we admit it, for it is
the worry same proposition which we have been
| trying to prove. But if, on the contrary, it is
abe understood as an assertion that the Con-
stituton does not permit master to keep his
slvve, or free negro to have his lib erty, in al
parts of the Union where the local law does
not interfere to prevent it, then the error is not
only very grave one, but 1t is also absurd and
Eelf contradictory.
| The Consultation neither establishes nor pro-
bjbts slaUeyy in the States or Territories beyond
thspo,csr oftbe people legally To contro! it. This
is sailing to Pont-No Point again. OF course
a subject, which is legally controlled, canno
be beyond the power that controls it. But the
question is, what constitutes legal CONTROL and
when the people of State or Territory are in 6
condition to exercise it.
| The Constitution Of The United States
leaves the people perfectly free,
aud subject only to the Constitution q
Ase Uniha States This carries us round full
circle, and drops us precisely at the place Of be
ginning, That the Constitution, is most tue
We are far from denying it. We never heard
it doubted, and expect we never will. But the
statement of it proves nothing, and explains
nothing. 1t merely darkens the subject a:
words without meaning always do.
But notwithstanding all this crcuity Of ex-
preston and consequent opaqueness ofmeaning
in the magazine article OF Mr.. Douglas, we
think We can guess what his opinions are or
will be when he comes to reconsider the SUBJ
ject. He will admit Cat least he will not un :
dertake to dcny) that the status of a, negro,
whether OF seryitude or freedom, accompanies
him wherever ho goes, and adheres to him in
every part Of the Union until he meets some
local law which changes it.
1t will also be agreed that the people OF a
State, through their Legislature, and the peo
pie ola Territory, in the constitution which
they may frame preparatory to their admission
as q State, can regulate and control the condi-
ton of the subject black race within their re-
spective Jurisdictions, so as to make them bond
or free.
But here we come to the point at which o.
pinions diverge Some insist that no citizen
cln be deprived Of his property in slaves, or in
anything else, except by the provision of a State
Legislature; while others contend that an un-
limited control over private rights may be ex-
ercised by Territorial Legislature as soon as
the earliest settlements are made.
So strong are the sentiments of Mr. Douglas
in favor of the latter doctrine, that if it be not
established he threatens us with Mr.. Seward s
"irrepressible conflict" which shall end only
with the universal dominion Of slavery, On
the other hand, the President, the Judges Of
the Supreme Court, nearly all the Democratic
members of Congress, the whole of the party
South, and very large majority North, are
penetrated with conviction that no such
power is vested in Territorial Legislature,
and that those who desire to confScate private
property of any kind must wait till they get a
constitutional convention or the machinery oi
"a State government into their hands. We
venture to give the following reasons for believ.
ing that Mr.. Douglas is in error.
The Supreme Court has decided that Ter
ritorial Legislature has not the power which he
claims for it. That alone ought to be sufficient.
There can be no law, order, or security for any
mans rights unless the judicial authority oi
the country be upheld. Mr.. Douglas may do
what he peases with political conventions and
party platforms, but we trust he will give to
the Supreme Court at lelst that decent respect
which none but the most ultra Republicans
have yet withheld.
The right Of property is sacred, and the first
object Of all human government is to mike it
secure. Life is always unsafe when property
is not fully protected. This is the experience
o every people on earth, ancient and modern.
To secure private property was a principal OBJ
!ect of Mag1ta Charta. Charles l. afterwards
attempted to violate it, but the people rose up
on him, dragged him 10 the block, and severed
his head from his body. At a still later period
another monarch for kindred offence was
driven out Of the country, and died fugitive
and an outcast Our own Revolution was pro
voked by that slight invasion upon the right o
property which consisted in the exaction Of @
trifng tax. There is no government in the