Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-08-30

| In his speech III inc 0''''
his SUBSEQUENT speech delivered at Cn'c'eo'
arr;,, the agitation of the Kansas Nebraska
son.ror.rsv. Mr.. Douglas expressed substan-
~. ,hc same theoretical opinion contained in
his last publication.
7, * true. that this theoretical consistency is
mich impaired by the action Of the Senator
from Illinois. By his course with regard to
Utah, by the provisions Of the Kansas Nehras.
ka act, regulating the most minute details Oh
the internal Government Of the Territories
nav, if we are not mistaken, by his own mo
ton. made in the Senate, 10 repeal certain pro-
slavery acts of the Territorial Legislature OF
Kansas. Mr.. Douglas has directly denied ms
own theoretical opinion, that Congress cannot
intervene 10 correct a Territorial Legislature III
matters appcr,aining to the internal govern
mont Of Territory. These matters We will
discuss more fully i'll subsequent article. We
do not refer TO them for the purpose of trump
iny w the vulgar charge Of dishonest inconsls-
tency, so frequently hurlcdat prominent states
men. We only desire to notice the undcnablc
.
! in the formation and advocacy Of his theory. it
! is 50 palpably unsound that he has not even
! been able to conform his own political conduct
to its dictates
\ similar reason, doubtless must he referred
to, to explain the manifest inferioritr of Mr..
Douglas last publication, to the really able
State papers and discourses Of which he Is the
distinguished author This last production
bears no stamp Of eminent craftsmanship 1t
is crude, illogical, and deficient in precision
We are obliged to look to the middle and not to
the end, to discover its real intent, for the con-
cluson which itapparently announces is y mere
generality which leaves the point Of contro-
versy altogether undecided.
The limits of the present article will not al
low us to enter at once upon that ample review
of Mr. Douglas essay, which We propose to lay
before our readers hereafter. The work, how
ever is no, Il difficult one We are spared all
t.oublr 10y a copy Of Gov. WlSc'S Sanford let
ter, which anticipates and rcllucs every argu-
men, which Mr. Douglas now advances.
Want Of space obliscs us for the present to
restrict ourselves to condensed statement
of the prominent and more Important parts of
the essay Could we publish, ut once, the
essay itself, We would gladly exclude every
thing else from our columns to do So But Mr..
Douglas has published his essay under copy
right, which places legal obstacle in the way
of its reproduction. We suggest that Mr..
Douglas owes it to himself 10 remove this oh
stacle to unrestricted publication. Under the
circumstances of his presidential candidacy, the
full record Of his political opinions should be
made accessible to the readers oil every politi-
cal journal throughout the Union. Especially
is it due TO the Southern people that the docu
,ncnt should be disseminated in their midst
through the thousands of publications and the
hundreds of thousands of impressions which
their own press affords. TO restrict the publ
cation to Northern magazine, or even to Il
few favored newspaper presses at the North,
amounts to its virtual suppression. Mr.. Doug
l;ls is \ candidate for the Sulirascs Of the South
crn people His essay is nothing less than an
invasion Of their most vital domestic and political
intercsts-a direct denial Of their constitutional
rights. 1t is their right, then, to he fully ad
viseJ-to be enabled to read at once for them
selves We urgently insist that the embargo
now laid on public information shall be prompt
Is removed.
In the meantime we take the liberty TO de-
scribe what we arc forbidden to publish.
Mr.. Douglas lierl, this essay
"rmE D>IplNG LINE BETWEEN FEDERAL AID
Local AUTHORITY PorvLAE SOVEREIGNTY IL
THE TERRITORIES.
After y >hor, introduction, comcs y state
mcnt Of the views:
Isl. OF Mr.. Douglas and his immediate par
t;sans
2d. OF the Southern Democracy and their
conservative allies al the North.
Sd Of the advocates Of compromise pol
icy.
Mr.. Douglas asserts the entire right of the
territorial legislatures to abolish slavery The
conservative Democracy deny this power to
the territorial legislature, and contend that
Congress ought 10 intervene in every case to
protect slave property against such attempted
aggression. The compromise men acknowledge
the right to hold slaves in the terrtorics-pro-
test against Congressional protection TO this
rish,-and incline to rely entirely on judicial
protection.
Mr.. Douglas strikes the compromise men a
1 g., f,n la, tIn c,1
lowing effect: II tie Constitution doos ,"ii7s
>itceholipw Ia colry tier Siores i~'o q tC,ri-
tory and hoid Mem there, II ~ Tic jmpsrotiec
duty Of Congress 10 s"Yply al tie tcyi,'"tiom
necessary To tie rroiertio" Of stare propriy.-
In wrh c.,sr, M ao,, Gun S"ti.fy lis conscieMce
oI Aix oath q, .ddetty to tie Constitution IN
cithholdi@g s'rh Congre~io"Gl lgisA'iioa
| Ii cannot be denied that this view which Mr.
Douglas takes Of the matter, is altogether nm
ail>wrrahlc As for himself, he takes his posi-
ton openly. honestly. consistently. We can
meet linn and oppose him on the open ground
of principle. lie denies IN tote the right of
resident 10 hold slaves in a territory in opposi-
ton 10 the prescribed will of its local lcgisa.
ture, and hence denies the right of Compression.
al protection against what he considers ,iyhtfll
local legislation. We describe such local legis-
| lation as unauthorized AMI unconstitutional,
and demand that Congress shall protcc, onr
citizens against such an unconstitutional nva-
sion OF our rights. Between Mr.. Douglas and
the conservative Democracy, the issue is fairly
made up and admits of no compromise And
Mr.. Douglas may well Unite with his opponents
in pointing the finger OF rcprobation ut a third
party who admits an inalicnablc right Of pro-