The Oxford intelligencer., 1860-07-04

institutions, understand We yield the right
simply to regulate, nOtdestroys To regulate is
one thing to destroy IS another and very differ
ent thing. Domestic institutions include as
admit the relation Of husband and wife, parent
and child, master and servant. But deny that
the right to regulate carries along with 1t the
right to destroy The right to regulate the rela-
ton between master and servant no more entities
the regulating power to destroy that relation,
than does the power to regulate the relation be-
tween husband and wife authorize the destruc-
ton Of that relation. As well might the Terri
toIial Legislature take wife from her husband,
under pretenee Of regulating their relations, as
to take servant from his master, under pre-
tence Of regulating that relation"
Did we surrender it in the doctrine of non-in-
teryention? Those who know the history Of
that expression and of that doctrine, must ad-
nit that it grew up in reference to, and in oppo-
sltion of the Wilmot Proyiso, and by the fair
rule Of construction, which the Courts always
give TO doubtful words in contract, il must be
construed in connection with the circumstances
surrounding the parties at the time. And by
that rule of construction It appears most mani
fest that by noninteyention was meant that
Congress should not intervene toprohibit slavery
in the Territories
But there are some who profess TO despise all
resort TO construction, and say that they take
words in their plain and ordinary meaning. To
such would say, go read the Declaration Of In
dependence: it is there written that "all men
are created free and equal and the Blacl, Re-
publican tells US that We, in the most solemn
compact ever entered into by the American
people, admitted that the negro was the equal Of
the white man. And we have been compelled
to look at The surrounding circumstances at the
time to find the true meaning of the words, and to
show that them who made the declaration were
themselves Shareholders, and could have meant
no such thing and without this construction We
must yield to the Black Republicans
Turn to the Constitution, and VIC there find
the celebrated words, I'VE the people Of the
United States" from which the Federalists ar
gued that ours was national and not a fedora
tive government and the States Rights men,
with Jefferson at their head, were compelled to
resort to construction-to look to the surround
ing circumstances and see that the Colonies were
/ independent soycrcigntigs, and that they adopted
/ the Constitution by separate States, and not as
one mass. Look to The Constitution again, and
YOU find the words, Congress shall have power
to make all ucedfIl rules and regulations respect
/ gthc Territories" and from this the Black Re-
publican argues that Congress has power to
prohibit slavery therein. And We have been
compelled TO resort to construc,on--to look to
the whole clausc-to show that it had reference
to the Territories as landed property, and not as
local governments. And these are but fair and
lcyiiimlto colstrlc'ions AMI IN strict accordance
with the rules Of law. But | am willing 10 lay
aside any considerations to surrounding circum-
stances and take the words Of the Cincinnati
platform itself and say that we do not suren-
der It there
l call attention first to The words, "Wcrccog.
nizc the right or the people Of all the Terrific
riez," &C. Now, "thc people" in politics, is
technical term; il does not mean squattcrs, nor
inhabitants, nor Legislators, but It means the
people in their sovcrci zn capaciiy-in convention
assemblcd-Fhcn they arc preparing to take
rank as a distinct people, and be admitted as
sovereign State. And insist that by The use
Of the words "the people, in the platform, so
FAR from recognizing thc'Tcritorial sovereignty
we did the reverse.
! call attention TO The resolution which rccoe- /
nizes the right Of The people to settle this qucs
ton ut the time "whoncycr The number Of their
Inhabitants j. siaes it to form a State Coastitu-
ton" &C. Itis true that We do not say they .
cannot do It at an earlier period, and this was
one Of the doubtful clauses which made an eX-
planatory plank at Charleston necessary, but by
The wen know n rule "eypr6o'o uains erc'Vsio .
a'a'vs," we have all insisted, and, think,
rightfllly, that then, and then alone, could they
exercise this power.
But leone now, fellow-citizcnz, to The words.
upon which the Douglas men have peculiarly
plumcd themselves, and which they have 50
often faunted into our faces" Non-interfcroncc
bv Congress in State and Territory, or the Dis
irot of Columbia" They certainly viii admit
that the non-iuicrfcrcnce is to be precisely the
same in cach-no more and no less. Thenwhat
Is Il in the District Of Columbian Slavery has
existed there since The Foundation Of this govern
mcnt and Is now protected by Congress. So
that non-interfcrence in The District Of Columbia
is not inconsistent with protection. But again,
llr. Douglas in his Harper article, in attempting
70 break the force ofthe Supreme Courts opinion
in The Dred scott case, whore it SAYS that "thc
only power which Congress has over the qucs-
tion Of slavery, is the power coupled with the
duty Of protecting the owner in his rights. " lie
says thatrcfers to slavery as il exists in the
State, and under State law, and there be admits
that the Federal Government is bound TO pro-
tect it when necessary. Here then, we see that
is not inconsistent with protee-
ton in the States, and If this be true Of The Dis
triet Of Columbia and Of the States, and if The
Territories are put upon the same footing, how,
I ask, can non-ntcrleronca be inconsistent with
protection Of slavery in the Territories?
Iasaert that VIC never have surrendered the
doctrine-that is not new-that it is right and
Just, and that our delegates were bound by their
instructions by their sense Of duty to them