Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-10-05
CONCLUDED FROM FIRST PAGE. reservations on Senator Douglass Views of Popular Sovereignty. As Expressed im Harper's Nagazine for
 SeDte06er 1S5Q
PREDATORY NOTE.

AS Oppressed '@ Harper's Nagazine fs
 September, 1859.
 PREDATORY NOTE.
 The constitution neither establishes m
 prohibits slavery in inc States or territo
 res beyond the power of the people legall,
 to control 1t. This is sailing to Point-no
 Polnt again. Of course a subject which i,
 legally controlled cannot be beyond tho power that controls it. But the question is
 what constitutes legal control, and when tho people of State or territory are in con. dition to exercise 1t?
 The constitution of the United States x leaves the people perfectly free,
 and subject only to the constitu. ton of the United States This carries us round full circle, and drops us precisely at the place of beginning. That the constitu. ton leaves everybody subject to the consti- tutlon, IS most true. We are far from de- nylng It. We never heard it doubted. and expect We never will But the statement of It proves nothing, defines nothing, and ex- plalns nothing. It merely darkens the sub- Ject, as words without meaning always do
 But notwithstanding all this circnitv of expression and consequent opaouenasS of meaning m the magazine article of Mir. Douglas, we think we can guess what his oplnlons are, or will be when he comes to reconsider the subject. He will admit fat least he Will not undertake to deny ! that the Status of negro, whether of servitude or freedom, accompanies him wherever he goes. and adheres to him in every part of the Unlon until he meets some local law which changes 1t.
 It will also be agreed that the people of a State, through their legislature, and the people of territory, in the constitution wnich they may frame preparatory to their aainlsslon as State, can regulate and con troi the condition of the subject black race within their respective jurisdictions, so as to make them bond or free.
 but we here come to the point at which opinlons diverge. Some insist that no citizen can be deprived of his property in slaves or Tn anything else, except by the . provisions of State constitution, or by the act of State legislature. while others cen tend that an unlimited control over private Ilgnts may be exercised by territorial legislature as soon as the earliest settle. ments are made.
 50 strong are the sentiments of NTr. Dougias Tn favor of the latter doctrine that II It be not established he threatens us with MT. Stewards ''irrepressible conflict" which shall end only with the universal abolition or 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 powerlS vested in a territorial egis- lature, and that those who desire to confis- cate prlvate property of any kind must wait until they get constitutional convention or the machinery of State government into thelr hands. We venture to give the fol- ioWing reasons for believing that Mr. Doug- las is in error:
 The supreme court has decided that a territorial legislature has not the power which he claims forit. That alone ought to be sufficient. There can be no law, order, or security for any mans rights unless the judicial authority of the country be upheld. MT Douglas may do what he pleases with polltlcal conventions and party platforms. but we trust he will give to the supreme court at least that decent respect which 1 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 make 1t secure. Life is always unsafe where property is not fully protected. This IS the experience of every people on earth, ancient and modern. To secure private property was principal object of Magua l Chorto. Charles 1. afterwards attempted : to violate 1t, but the people rose upon him, | dragged him to the block, and severed his i; head from his body At a still later period . another monarch for kindred offense was driven out of the country, and died fugi- 1. tive and an outcast. Our own revolution was provoked by that slight invasion upon the right of property which consisted in the exaction of triAing tax. There is no go- vernment in the world, however absolute, which would not be disgraced and endan- gered by wantoniy sacrificing private pro- perty even to small extent. For centuries | past such outrages have ceased to be com mitted in times of peace among civilized | nations
 Slaves are regarded as property in the southern States. The people of that sec tion buy and sell, anS carry on all their business, provide for their families, and make their wills and divide their inheri- tances on that assumption. It is manifest to all who know them that no doubts ever cross their minds about the rightfuness of holding such property. They believe they have direct warrant for it, not only in the examples of the best men that ever lived, but Tn the precepts of divine revelation it. self; and they are thoroughly satisfied that the relation of master and slave is the only one which can possibly exist there between the white and the black race without ruin ing both. The people of the north may differ from their fellow citi4en of the south on the whole subject, but knowing, as we all do, that these sentiments are sincerely and honestly entertained, we cannot wonder that they feel the most unspeakable indig nation when any attempt made to inter- fere with their rights. This sentiment re- suits naturally and necessarily from their education and habits of thinking They cannot help it any more than an honest man in the north can avoid abhorring thief CT housebreaker.
 The jurists, legislators and people of the northern States have always sacredly re- spected the right of property in slaves held by their own citizens within their own iuris- diction. It Is remarkable fact, very well worth noticing, that no northern State ever passed any law to take negro from his master. All laws for the abolition of sla- very have operated only on the unborn de- scendants of the negro race, and the vested rights of masters have not been disturbed in the north more than in the south
 In every nation under heaven, civilized, semi -barbarous, or savage, where slavery has existed in any form at all analogous to ours, the rights of the masters to the control of their slaves as property have been re- Spected; and on no occasion has any go-- vernment struck at those rights, except as it would strike at other property. Even the British parliament, when it emancipated the West India slaves, though itwas legislating for people three thousand miles away and not represented never deniad a;tbar .bo Ia |