Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1860-07-13
GFrOm the n. Y. Post
Mr.. BreCkinridse's Apology


Mr.. Brecl<inridge's Apology.
The democratic candidate for the Presi-
iency, in letter accepting the Baltimore
nomination. which we publish elsewhere,
concclvcs it necessary not only to explniu,
but to defend the politicul position of his
adherents. 1t is usual for candidates on
such occasions to express merely their
formal acknowledgment Of the honor ten
dered them, and IL general concurrence in
the doctrines of the Convention by which
it was rendered. But Mr.. Breciinridge
has been compelled to depart from this
| custom by the factions existing in his par
| ty, and to address a long letter to the pub
lie, arguing the questions at issue between
them. Nothing could show more impress
sively the depth and seriousness of the
rupture which exists than the solicitude of
Mr.. Breckenridge to present his view of
their differences in the best light.
We cannot say, however, that his argu-
| ments have any great novelty or force in
them; he simply reiter0tes the southern
logic as to the equality of the states, and
the rights of shareholders to their proper
ty; and while he admits the supreme con-
troll of congress over the federal terrific
rIes, he nevertheless denies that Congress
has any power to act upon the subject of
slavery, except to pass laws for its protec-
| the inherent ahsurdity of his position If
Congress is the proper sovereign of the
territories, if it may pass laws to establish
slavery in them, why may it not refuse TO
pass laws to establish it, or even pass laws
against its establishment 1t would puz-
zlc Mr. Breckinridge, or any of his friends.
we think, to show how. under Il grant of
power which is wholly general in its char
ncter, in which nothing is specifically pre-
scribed and nothing specifically forbidden,
Congress has no option, no discretion, no
right to proceed, save in one particular
mode.
Mr.. Brcckiuridge forgets also that sla-
very, by the laws of nature and of nations
as we'll rs by the laws of the slave States
themselves, is an exceptional institution.
1t does not subsist, as other institutions of
civilized society, Ivy the common usage or
common law of the land Nothing but di-
rect and positive enactment by competent
authority can give it legal existence. There
are two reasons for this-the first that the
attributes of man are not naturally the
suhject-matter ofpropcrty; that there can
! be no occupancy of his faculties prior to
his own; and that therefore, when y man is
ousted of all right to himself and made Il
brute, beast, or chattel, the act is one of
force, which can only be lcgalized by pos
itive law; and the second reason is, that
universal experience has shown that sla-
very has powerful and for the most part
detrimental effect upon the commercial
and moral condition of society, so that
| society will not tolerate it except under
the strictest legal provisions. The jurs-
! prudence of mankind, consequently. has
always treated slavery as peculiar, local
and municipal question, and never MS 81
! simple question of property. What fun
damental fallncy, then, lies in the COM
plants of Mr.. Breckenridge and his south
ern friends, when they allege that Con-
gress, in refusing to sanction slavery in
the territories, makes war upon the rights
! of the states! Congress merely declares
! that local laws shall remain local laws, or
that the particular usHges OF South Caro-
lima Nre not of universal application and
validity.
y lawyer of Mr.. Brcckinridges Standing
ought to know, also, that the notion which
i is now SO frequently advanced, and which,
| we believe, was proclaimed in the famous
! Drcd Scott decision, that the constitution
'of the United States recognises slaves us
I property, is quite untenable. The con-
( stitutiOn, which is a compact between
| federal states, must of necessity recognise
+ the laws of each of those States, not in
consistent with ITSELF as operative within
the States. But it does not thereby re-
cOgnise the principles involved in those
| laws, or justify them as right and good
! They are recognised because they are laws
! of the States, and not because they are
! just or wholesome. 1t is one thing to
admit that laws regulating slavery exist
in certain States, and another thing to
establish Il right of property in slaves
The former is all that is done by the fedcr-
al constitution, and the latter can only
I, Il Al,