The weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1858-1860, 1859-05-17

l AssSA. 49, AssesSiRpsDu onu 6SAte 0n1Sttes 18Th
Not more clear Is the doctrine that the flag 0
sne Onlon is qua a'ee Of protection to per
sons and proper, Of American citizens OF
the high seas, than that the property. slave o.
otherwise, Of the South, is entitled to protection
IN the Territories while they are under the con
troll Of the Federal Government.
Ihis doctrine Is SO clearly just and go mani
lestly in accordance with the letter and spirit OF
the Constitution, and the objects contemplated
| by It's trainers, that We are amazed that any
attempt has been made to controvest it. ssaf
| II, then, il be the doctrine Of the Constitu-
ton, Il ls the doctrine of the Democratic party.
We have not comprehended the doctrine Of this
party Alright, ifit is not TO administer the Gov
ernment IN accordance with the teaching OF
tnat instrument. With firm conviction we have
iabored for its success, and followed its flag
wherever its colors have been displayed.
The attempt which is made to identify the
power OF Congress TO prohibit the extension OF
Slavery into the Territories, with the power to
protect IT, Is refuge from. The force OF an ire
sistabie TACT so pitiul that il does not merit the
consideration OF refutation. The great object
OF government is to protect the citizen In his
person aud property not to destroy. Upon this
SUBJECT, We cannot too strongly endorse the fol-
lowing views of the Richmond Enquirer:
but, while counseling unity and harmony,
virginia is not unmindful of the great questions
tnat are yet unsettled with regard TO Slavery in
the territories. Virginia sees that though the
Constitution recognizes and the Supreme Cour:
eustains her right to carry slaves in:o Terri
tory, yet she also remembers that Judae Doug
las SO pointedy brought to light in Iii.nois, thai
this right may be rendered null and void by the
nonacsion OF the Territorial Legislature. While
virginia recognises no power that can compel
Territorial Legislature to enact those laws ne
cessary to protect the constitutional rights Of
Shareholders, yet she does hold that Congress
has the right, and is in duty bound, to protect
Slavery in the Territories until the people OF a
Territory, whea on the ene Of forming state
Gopernment, may decide the question finally for
tie future State.
The question is one above the platforms of |
parties, aud must be met and decided, cons.itu-
tlonatly in favor OF protection, or unco .stitu-
tionaliy against it. 1t cannot and must not be
If the Cincinnati piatform does
not proutde for this question: 1t must be made to
meet this issue.
'Ihis question of protection to Slavery in the
Territories will have TO be met, and the South
will demand her constitutional rights; these
tights are recognized in the Constitution, as.
serted in the kansas-Nebraska bill, admitted by
he Cincinnati platform, and have been sane
,oned and adjudcated By the Supreme Court;
md, With this array OF authority, the South will
iemand the legislation necessary to render val
q the rights SO amply recognised by the party,
he country, the Congress, the Supreme Court,
md the Constitution.
The right to reclaim fugitive slaves was civ.
n BY the Constitution. The Northern States re-
used TO lesslate Tor the practical enforcement
i this constitutional right, and Congress was
ompelled to provide the legislation necessary TO
be usefulness OF this provision. So is it with
egard to Slavery in the Terri cries. There is
Q power to coerce a Territorial Legislature to
Q Its constitutional duty, and Congress must
lppiy the legislation withheld by the dereIct
erritory.
Intervention for protection is a fundamental
rlnciple with the South"