The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-03-28

between the right sought to be destroyed by
the Kansas legislature and the uSnrpation by
which the destruction Of that right IS sought.
Who can doubt what the decision OF that ju-
dietary will be ? No one who has read the
bred Scott decision can for q moment doubt
the courts upon appeal, will declare the recent
attempt at usurpation in Kansas, by Prohb-
ltory act, null and void, and leave the owners
OF slave property there in the possession of
their common-law remedies for prot, ction-
remedies which, in my estimation, will be
found quite sufficient. This action to which
ne has pointed was the first, but the legitimate
frut OF the doctrine promulgated by the SEN
ator from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas:) and it was
hastened OF induced in part, doubtless, from
a suppositon upon the part of the territorial
legislature that the overshadowing influence
OF that Senator would induce congressional
sanction OF their usuTpation. When this eX-
pcctatlon has been disappointed as it will be,
and when those legislatures have been rebuk-
ed by the courts for their attempted usrr0a-
ton, as we know in advance, from the bred
Scott decision, they will be, such action will
not be repeated by those or any other terrific.
rial legislatures, and the doctrine on which it
Is based will soon cease to be entertained
unless, indeed, the Senator from Mississippi
and others who may be disposed to aid him
secure the nomination for the presidency of
the main pillar Of the doctrine, and thus make
it settled governmental policy.
The absence of any special legislative pro-
lection for slave property may, | grant YOU.
subject the owners of that property to incon
veniences, to qnnoyances; but certainly to none
greater than are the owners of other seIcmoy-
ing, locomotive property daily subiected-in-
conyenlences and annoyances requiring vigil
lance for the preservation of property, but not
affecting its title, nor necessarily its possess
sion. We must not create and we should not
be asked to create-and | doubt our rioht IN
grant the request if it is asked-rights either
for the North or for the South, by legislation
but it is our duty, the duty of every DEPART
ment of the Government, to see that rights
granted by, or recognized by the Constitution,
receive adequate protection. The D0lcer of
the Judiciary to grant such protection. cannot
be questioned; because the judiciary derives
its power from the Constitution. which asserts
the right; and the judiciary was created by
that Constitution for the very purpose of as
serting and defending rights under it. Hith-
erto, the courts have been found possessed of
the required means for the adequate exer-
else of that power. II at any time here
after, they are found deficient in those means
and the local legislature refuses to grant them.
it will be the duty of Congress to supply the
deficiency in support Of the comts; but it is
not the duty, and scarce the right, of Con-
gress to grant that general legislation in adj
vance contemplated by the Senator's resolu-
tons, and asked by his BILL Such legislation
would be departure, as he has well said.
from that great principle Of non-intervcntion
we have so long sustained-a principle now so
necessary, as it has been heretofore, for our
success; and not only for that, but so neces-
sary for harmony between the Northern and
Southern wings of the only party which has
its members from the lakes to the Gulf
AS with the Senator special ''decov" argu.
ment, adverse to the common law, so with his
others; their fallacy generally can be shown:
and, indeed, the impolicy and inutility, one or
both, of most of the congressional legislation
he asks for the Territories, can be easily de-
monstrated; but | do not design to consume
the time Of the Senate with any lengthy ar.u-
ments on the subject. | shall leave them
to ADLER heads. Far better leave the protec-
ton OF an established right to the Constitu-
ton, the courts, and the great unwritten conf
mon law, which is the sense of right among
intelligent men, their common sense and that
OF the courts, than to that ever legislation
asked for in the Senator's bill. and which
would subject him to more Inconvenience.
more annoyance, in observance of its provi-
SONS, than will the absence Of all legislation