Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1860-07-23

Ton
gress just concluded that the laws of Khnsa,
prohibiting slavery should be annulled, his de
nand was only seconded by Senator johnson
of Arkansas, and Senator Mallory. of Florida
and upon the other hand, when the Blaok-Re.
publicans proposed a bill for abrogating the
laws Of New Mexico in favor Of slavery. allthe
Democratic Representatives in Compress
South and North, as well as all the Sonthern
Opposition members, agreed in resisting II
The fact is notorious, also that by the assist.
auce of Mr. Thayer, Of Massachusetts, and 9th.
ers Of his party in the House, the Democrats
and southern Oppositonists were enabled 20
defeat number Of Territorial bills containing
the Wilmot Proviso 1t was evident, there
fore, when our National Convention reassem.
bled at Baltimore on the 18th of June. that
the wisdom of the Democratic party in adher.
ling TO the doctrine of Non-Interyention'i
through every trial and reverse, would soon be
rewarded by triumph no less signal than that
which attended our opposition to a Bank of
the United States and our devotion TO the prin-
ciples of the Independent Treasury Act If
in the estimation of all, except three support.
ers of the Senatorial caucus resolutions so
called, declaring that Congress ought TO inter.
vene for the protection of slave property in the
Territories, "cheH necessary" the express nbo.
clifton Of slavery in Kansas by Territorial net
did not constitute a case of necessity for sncb
intervention, what possible case ever could
nriso2 No Democrat will deny the obligation
Ofthe Federal Government to suppress insur-
rections within Territory, and to enforce
even as against Territorial enactments. A final
judgment of the Supreme Court of the United
States. Nor can it be denied that Congress-
may, in certain extreme cases beyond the pow
er OF redress by judicial interposition, revoke
or amend charter of Territorial organ
ization. For what useful purpose, then,
was the agitation of so dangerous question
renewed by President Buchanan in his last
annual message, orinAamed by the resolutions
of a Senatorial caucus and finally thrust upon
the Democratic National Convention nj
Charleston2
! 1t is said, in excuse, that the principles
enunciated by the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States in the case of bred OF lead to the
conclusion that a Territorial Legislature, has
no more authority over the subject of slavery
than Congress, and that Congress, equally
with territorial Legislatures, is under obliga-
tons to protect as well the possession as the
title of slave property in the Territories We
do not intend to debate this question one way
or another 1t is admitted, universally, that
no such question was presented by the record
Of bred SCOTS case, nor argued by counsel
at the baT and whatever the conclusion at
which any Democrat might arrive, upon read
ing the opinions delivered by the several
judges, that conclusion can not be SO clear
of doubt as to warrant him in censuring those
who, with an equal desire to ascertain the
truth, have attained another conclusion, We
must all agree that If the Supreme Court did
M M INF In IL.
believe it would be an act of bad faith, In
violation of the very terms of the Kansas,Ne-
braska Bill, to commit the Democratic party,
as a national organization, TO either side
whereas, if the Court did 50. intend, nothing
is more certain than that whenever the cues
ton shall distinctly arise, and be fairly argued,
the Court will express its determination in
language so plain as to command universal
acquiescenoe. The judgement of the Su-
preme Court in bred SCOTS case has been
carried into full execution; and whatever
judgment it may hereafter pronounce, in
case depending on the validity or invalidity of
Territorial enactments must be and will be
executed with equal alacrity and confidence
But, evidently, until some Territorial Legisa-
ture shall by its enactments have impaired the
right Of property in slaves, there can be no
use in agitating such questions; and it. as the
authors of the Senatorial caucus resolutions
have declared by their votes the case of Kan
sas be not a proper case for Congressional in-
tervention, it is difficult to imagine any other
in which a necessity for such Intervention will
arise
1t is said, however, that the Democratic
party thus occupy an equivocal position, and
that the Cincinnati Platform is rendered sus-
ceptible of two interpretations This pretext
is merely. plausible The platform has no
double meaning, and but one sensible inter
pretation. 1t declares against Congressional
Intervention plainly, openly and unequivocally
but refers the question what power il any, a
Territorial Legislature can exercise for the
prohibition or the maintenance of slavery, as a
Territorial institution, to the adjudication of
the Supreme Court of the United States. Dem
ocrats may differ as to what the Court should
or will decide but they have stipulated, what
ever the decision may be, to carry that decis-
ion into effect
1t has been argued, also, inasmuch as one
duty Of government is the protection of prop
erty in return for the allegiance of its sub
jects that the Federal Government can not
abdicate authority with respect to the Terrific
ries, but should constantly exercise a power of
immediate legislation for the protection of
property as well as persons within them
This proposition, also, is merely plausible.
II ignores the fact that Congress must have,
and has always exercised, choice of nstru-
mentalities. 1t ignores the fact also, that
the duties OF Government have been divided
under our American system into those of
Federal and those Of State, Territorial, and
even Of county, parish, and municipal charac-
ter. All these, taken together, constitute the |
Government of which, and Of which only, the |
proposition can truly be predicated, and un-
less we adopt the maXims Of the old Federal |
party which our fathers repudiated in 1898, |
1899 and 1900, we must deny that the Govern |
ment of the United States can afford any pro-
lection, except in a Federal capacity, TO prop |
erty Of any descriptions all other duties of pro. |
lection having been wisely conGded to State or |
Territorial, and, in some cases, to merely mu-
ncipal authorities. II is true, undoubtedly, |
that all forms of property recognized by the |
laws Of the respective States composing our
Confederation, are entitled TO equal regard by |
their common Federal agent; but 10 affirm |
that it shall, under the pretense of protecting
a right of property usurp any power not
c early delegated BY the States, in the terms
of the compact with each other, is TO affirm
doctrine fraught with the most fatal conse-
quences The question is not whether prop
erty in slaves, or any other form of property
shall bo protected in the States, or in the Ter,
ritores, or elsewhere; the question is by
lchich of the several divisions Of Government
with us, and to 0hdt ertent By each, this pre-
lection shall be afforded 1t Is controversy,
therefore, involving the whole ground of diff
ference between the Democratic party and
the various parties by which, in the history of |