New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-03-15

cl6tlDEulhDed chrdidate the Frequency Womu
accept the Charleston nomination If rendered 70 him
ur.less this doctrine were ayowed. Whether
this were true rot, remains TO be seen.
Certainly The nomination would be sn indorsetnen'
of the doctrine; the construction OF platform
10 be carried ont in the administration o.
the Government, and dishonoring to The South and
demorahzpg to the party succumbIng TO pracucal
negatoD of the right Of Southern men to em,grate
with the labor to which they are accustomed. IL lpe
Southern States true to the mselyes they wouiu
demand in positive and unequvocal terms the re-
pudiaton Of this here5y at Charleston. ihe5
wanted no VilIsfranca treaty to be discussed
in tedious Zurich Conference but manly, honest as
sertion of principle Whatever course others mign,
take. Alabama had spoken Nearly every pontcai
convention of all parties in that State for the ass
twelve years. bad Denounced this doctrine or theory
of Popular or Squater Sovereignty as applied 70 Inc
territories Whatever course others might take,
between Alabama and the advocates OF tins
theory there was q great gulf fixed, which the
mechanical genius and inventive faculties Oh Ihe
Charleston Convention could never bridge over ine
tue principle was that the matter could 60 INTO tr
Territories his eeryant accompany him ana
neither Congress the Territorial Legsi lture haa
the power to dvest him of his title to his property as
the slave. property ID legally aud Const!i1tntiona,y
there and no power can invaldate It until sover-
eighty inerpoees. The Constitution extends ut once
over the domains.
Mr.. Curry here quoted from the decision OF
Judge fancy in the bred Scott case aud other le,
gal decisions, in support of this view. and denied
Slavery was anywhere as stated in the Harper maga
zine article, the creature Of local or municipal law
No law was found on the statute book OF any Soutn
State, authorizing the Introduction OF Slavery anu
if positive precept were necessary the tenure oy
which they held their slaves wae uncertain ana ,iie
GAL citizen of n Southern State or saveholding
county, like Cuba or Brazil could pass with imppmly
Slavery is is not prohibited. The law OF ma
lions protects the master an trGDsitD, and enorces
the law of domcil for that protection, if it ID not
against the public policy or the essential lnteres. ol
Ion IF nail
the relation and permits no interference with the
rights of the master So, too, the STAKEHOLDER could
carry his property into Territory of the United States
and have there This had been controverted
by Northern men, but others had recognized the prin
cipe 1t had been stated on that hoor and over
again, that there never was any law authorizing tne
introduction of Slavery into the British Colonies,
and the case of Georgia not an exception.
He quoted the opinions of Joshua r. Giddngs, as
expressed in his resolution in the celebrated Gre.
ole case in 1875, that Slavery, being an abIdgemeDt
of the natural rights of man, could exist only by posi-
tive law. Senator Sumner, too, took as text OF
one Of his nfammatory barangues Freedom
NATIONAL Slavery SECTIONAL" and the Repub'-
can Party had incorporated it into their plat
form. The latest Endorsement of this doc
| time was that Of the Illinois Democracy.
who in their recent State Convention asserted by reso-
luton that Slavery exists in Territory, not deriving
it, validity from the Constitution OF the United States,
but as a mere municipal institution existing n, ~
| the Territory under the laws thereof Ire
same might be said Of Slavery in State AS this was
| fine first intelligence Of Democratic Convention
having adopted this doctrine, he would set 1t down
as a second branch OF the parental STOCK OF
law for ts introduction, then Slave property could not
be held in Territory and it was supertiuous to talk
about Wjlmot Provsos and Congressional prohibitions
Under this doctrine of the Illinois Democracy Slavery
could not get there ALL sndthus the South was prac-
ticaly and forever excluded from the occupancy OF
| common Territory. The Convention only adopted the
suggIstion of Judge Douglas, in ms reply to Judge
| Black in the Harper article.
Mr. Curry referred to the decision of Judge Story in
the case of Prigg agt Pennsylvania conendng that
| was out of the record, and was induced by the
| judges strong anti-Slayery predictions, as had
been shown in his biography lately published by MS
| son. He also referred to the treaty of peace be-
tween the United States and Great Britain signed at
Paris Sept. g. 173 by three Northern men, Franklin,
Jay, and Adams, which treaty recognized properly IN
negroes and quoted yarious portions OF the Consn-
ton TO the effect. Slave property, he said, was
| recognized in the Constitution The supreme Court
had affirmed the right to carry il TO the Territories,
and this recognition and guaranty OF prote was an
unavoidable sequtur From the premises the con-
clusion was irresistible that Government was bound
for its security and support He did not admit tuit
Congress could abolish establish Slavery IN Ter
ritory 1t had only the affirmative power of protee-
ton The Constitution did not change the status OF
the negro in the Territory. But Congress was az
much bound to protect slaves IN territory
as any other property on the high seas. Con
press could exercise only affirmative power IN TINS
as in many other For instance, Congress could
make no law to abridge the freedom OF speech or OF
the Press but it could make laws to protect those
constitutional rights of the citizen. lie referred TO
the Alabama resolutions of 1856 and lStO the sent-
ment of which was taken from the speech OF a
Northern Democratic representative on the moor,
that the South is entitled 10 protection IN the states,
in the Territories ard in the wilderness where Govern
ment is unorganized and TO deny and retuse was 10
DENY her equality in the republic and ail 10 iuhl one
of the great purposes for which the Government was
instituted It had been urged that this claim interfered
with the doctrine of nonnterveption proclaimed IN
the Cincinnati Platform. lie might say graIlteu, anu
what then But it was not true, and the apphoan9n
of the doctrines of that platform az applcaoe 10 tue
Territory demonstrated, without further argument
| lad Logic. Not line in the legislation OF lS9o, III
relation TO Kansas and Nebraska or in the Cinc'nhat
Platform itself could be tortured into
by the South Of the right OF protection Inc oouln nea
that nonntervention was pledge that oove nnlolie
doubtful legislation in that regard But TINS doctrine
Of nou-ntefventiOn was held by some shallow oevlce
and really meant that Government was to kli Siav-
| eIy by ignoring it and refusing TO an1rd IL any
protection; Ielinqnishing the duties of the Govern-
mont and abandoning the equality OF States IN the
| confederacy. Thus non-ntervention meant aggres-
give action against the South, and discrimination al
verse 10 Slavery. If the Government would not pro-
tect the South against unfriendy legislation, wOud
not carry the claim of the STAKEHOLDER for redress &c
the proper tribunals the Shareholder must establish
tribunals that would If the Fugitive Slave Law was
not TO be returned to the MASTER the stakeholder must
have an army and navy to guard his coast and mon
tier Ii the SOuh was ct entitled 10 snare III the
common property of the Union, and participate III liz
common benefits, it ought to be excepted from lexas
and military contribution. Protection was the price
maid Inv Goyernmen for the support of its citizens. lie
could conceive Of disgrace more bitter, no degre
dation deeper than the denial of their right OF protec
ton accompanied by simultaneous demand Tor the
means of maintenance at the Government AS
oyal son of the South, he would beseech her not
again 10 commit the fatal mistake Of yielding 10 party
necessity what is essential TO future safety, ana not