New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-08-10

"
would like from you, either in Tbs TsIsuSR OF
nv letter Yours &c, CHARLES MoLoUrH
Reply.
Mr. M-You seem to misapp-eherd wholly the
point made against Mr.. Douglas. 1t is net simply
that he indorses the bred Scott Decision, nor that
be proclaims 4" Popular Sovereignty" in the Terri
tories to be the true panacea for our sectional dis
fractions the rightful end of controversy respect
ing Slavery in the Territories 30 far as we of the
States are Col cerne6, but that the too positions arc
fatally inconsistent sU each other. II the principles
laid down sud affirmed by Judge fancy and lis
brethren in rendering the bred Scott decision are
sound, then Popular Sovereignty in the Terri
tories so far as it affects the existence of Slavery
therein, is bubble, mirage, chimera,
cheat. Slavery goes into every Territory when-
ever any STAKEHOLDER sees fit to take it
there, DO matter though the ten thousand
other and older settlers unanimously protest
against it.. If the Federal Constitution recognizes
slaves IS PropeIty-not merely in the Save States
but ia the Territories as well--and guarantees t.
their owners the secure and peacesble pOssessi
and use of that property, at least SC long as the
Territorial condition is maiutaned-thea popular
Sovereignty with regard to Slavery in tire Ter
ritories is but "the baseless fabric Of vision"
Mr.. Douglass attempts to escape this conclusion,
especially 10 his Freeport speech seem to US to IN
volye him in the most dangerous snd fatal inccn-
sistencies. Two rights can never seriously con-
fict; and, if any Stakeholder hes Constitutional
right to plant and maintain Slavery in sry Terri
tory, then to hold that bis fellogsettlers therein
may, by unfriendly legislation, diyest hi2 OF that
right, or render it practically valueless, is to uo.
settle all rights whatever aud pract ally eLthrohe
the viii OF the strongest as law Let the slave
holders accept Mr. Douglass doctrine on this point,
and they will fad it more dangerous and damaging
than the Wilmot Proviso.
Understand, Mr.. NJ, that we object to Mr..
Douglass two positions that they are irrecorcla-
ble-that his acceptance of the bred Scott De.
csiOn makes his Squatter Sovereignty hum
bug One or the other may be right; both can
not be.
And now TO the Republicans and their attitude
toward the bred Scott Decision:
In 1897, and again in 1902, the British Court Of
Kings Bench (Chief Justice Holly pronounced
the correct and righteous decision that there ID
no such thing as slave by the laws OF England"
Yet in 1929 the Attorney General (YOrke) end So
hcitOr- General of the Grown gave written Opln-
ion that negroes legally ensaved elsewhere, might
be held as slaves 10 England; and in l749 Yorke,
now Lord Hardwicke), sitting es Judge, pro-
nounced this doctrine from the bench. But that
did not prevent Lord Mansfield, IN the famous
Somerset Gaze twenty five years later, from over
ruling Lord Hatdwcke's decision, and declaring
from the Bench, that the state of Slavery is OF
such nature that it is incapable of being intro
" duced on any reasons, moral or political, but
" only by positive law, which preserves It's force
" long after the reasons occasion, aud tme ITSELF
"whence ii was created, are erased from the
" memory. 1t is 80 odious that nothing can be
" permitted to support it but positive law" And
he thereupon, very reluctantly, pronounced the
decision in favor of the Jamaica slave Somerset,
which has banished Slavery ever since from Great
Britain, and stands to day al unquestlOned expo
stion of the law of EDgland. We see here that
Courts even the highest, confess their own fall
bility and amend their own errors: shall we DC
less ready to override judicial dcta 10 obedience to
the clear requirements Of Eternal Right
Our attitude toward the bred Scott decision Is
essentially that Of the Republicans of l799 toward
the sedilion Law, after the Supreme Court had
affirmed its validity. They did not conspire to
resist .be Court and the laws ministers; they re-
solved to repeal the law; and they did it. SO with
the Democrats Of a later day in their persistent
onuo.tion 70 O United States Bank o. uneo.sflfu'