Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-10-26
from the Register.
efH0 w EsoOf'1
HARRIsoNDURa, Oct. 16. 1860.


Mr.. Murphy AT your instance I will
correct your article. headed ''Mr. Collier,
of Petersburg" l am satisfied that you did
not intend to mis-report me, am fully as we'll
satisfied that We y many political teachers
neither understand the theory of our federal
system nor the practical working of which
it is capable. admit that your report Of
my remarks is quite as accurate as such re-
ports generally are. l will show how your
report puts me in position do not occu-
|py.
Forbcaring to make any animadversions.
I invite you to consider that spoke of what
might and ought to De done after the South
ern States had made demand aud got
denial to have repeal of laws passed by
the Northern States to hinder and defeat
the execution of the fugitive slave law
70 resist be- fore specific demand has been
made, and to resist after denial of the de- y
mand. it would seem, you will perceive,
are very different things. Though / was
so explicit, MIR. Yancey replied, as you
say Then you believe, Sir, there is suf-
icient cause aoc for dissolution of the
Union" Nothing had said justified the
reply. l did not rejoin, being unwilling
to seem to provoke any discussion on that
more private occasion, when more public
one had been declined for him by his Own
| friends; aud seeing, as did, that he ell
! ther did not understand me, or else, if he
did, that his reply was neither sensible
oEe nor logical Inference from my re-
mark And will add that though might
deem the denial of the demand both being
| conditions precedent, a cause for disunon,
yet there are means Of redress which one
state injured by another or others, may re-
sort to, short of di~solving the Uuion -
In this relation, disunion ought not to en-
sue, in my opinion, until the Federal Gov
ernment shall have failed to do its duty,
that duty in this behalf being only to see
to it that the fugitive slave law is enforced
in each case as it occurs. The States, in
their reciprocal sovereign relation to each
other, and not Congress, are 10 fault for
passing laws to prevent the execution of
the fugitive slave law.
As to the other remark you criticise,
wish only to say that i'll claiming, as do,
the protection of Congress in the act admit
ting Site sovereignty, but that Congress
should interfere in favor of private rights
against State porer. l assert the claim in
the strength and plain import Of the Consti-
tutional guarantee of republican forms to
every State. The difference between US is
that you demand the protection of Congress
during territorial existence, when the pro-
lection of the Court can be had, and the
protection of Congress is not necessary;
whereas. demand the protection of Con-
| gress in admitting the State, when the pro-
lection Of the Court cannot be had and that
Of Congress is necessary.
AS to my defending MIR. Yancey against
being disunionlst per Sc, what | said. ana
my opinion IS, that he thinks that the Uuion
is so out of the shield Of the Constitution
that there is already existing cause sufficient
to justify disunion. whereas, would resist
any State secession or rebellion, utterly dis
senting, as do. from Mr.. Yaneey that any
existing cause, with the loss of this election
superadded. would be cause enough for so
dire an event. It is sin and shame that,
with such government as ours, and in the
midst OF Astounding prosperity, we can never
be so out agitation and at ease as to mani
fest gratitude to Divine Goodness for the
blessings we enjoy.
Your ob't serv't.
r. r. COLLIER.