The Oxford intelligencer., 1860-10-03
False Pretences.


To any man, however, who is well-infcrmed
in regard to the past career of Mr.. Douglas,
it must be apparent that the eager friends of
that gentleman are either ignorant Of, or to-
tai unLelievcrs in, that maxim which an
nounces the impolicy of the act Of throwing
stones, ON the part of those whose own
dwellings are of glass.
BY the great body of the American peo-
pie, ''the little giant" is regarded, not as a
statesman, but as political juggler-a dem
agogue-possessed of something more than
ordinary skill in controlling the machinery of
deception; and this opinion is entertained
concerning him by many of his own supper
tiers, who rest their hopes of his success up
on their faith in his ability to "gull" suffi-
cient number Of the people to ensure his
election.
Upon three great questions, each and all
Of vital importance to the South, We main
tain, and we think we can readily demon
strate, that Mr.. Douglas has been grossly in
consistent with his former sell, as well as
with those professions of fidelity TO South
ern rights which are so constantly upon his
lips.
Up to the date of the Cincinnati Conven-
ton of le46, there was division of opin-
ion among the members of the Democratic
party, in regard to the time when the people
of Territory had a right to control the
question of slavery within their limits. Mr..
Douglas and his followers contended that
this right could be exercised by the people
of aYrcrritory as soon as their Territorial
government was organized while, on the
other hand, the Southern Democracy, in
particular, insisted that the people of Ter
ritory had, and could have, no jurisdiction
over the subject of slavery, which could
enable them to exclude the institution from
the Territory, until they came TO form Con-
stitulion, preparatory TO their admission into
the Union rs a State. The question, from
its very nature, was incapable of solution by
any act of legislation; and, therefore, by
common consent, the Democracy agreed to
differ" in regard to it, until it should be set
tied bv an authoritative decision Of the Ju-
dietary, to which Department, rather than to
Congress, the settlement ofjudicial questions
exclusively pertains; and Mr.. Douglas, in
common with all the other members of the
party Mt that day, pledged himself to abide
by that decision, whenever il should he made,
aud whatever might be its character. In
1857, the bred Scott decision was pronounc-
ed by the Supreme Court of the United
States and the Court, in that case, emphat-
ically decided ogaiRSt the doctrine for which
Mr.. Douglas had contended. Congress, said
the Court, has no power to exclude slavery
from Territory; and, from this rule, the /
was irresistible, that Territorial
Legislature, deriving all its authority from
an act of Congress, must be incapable Of cx-
crcising power which was interdictcd TO its
creator. Mr.. Douglas, at frst-supposing
that the Northern people would quietly sub
scribe 70 the correctness Of the doctrine
by the Supreme Court-admitted
that the Court had decided the question
against him; but, when he found that the |
sentiment of the free States was
aroused in opposition to the de-
cison Of the Court, he, anxious to conciliate
the opponents of slavery, who, as he forcsaw,
would infallibly array themselves against him /
if he observed his pledge to abide by the de-
cision, began to cast about for the means of |
escape from his position. Then it was, that,
in order to catch abolition votes, he invented |
and announced his doctrine Of ''unfriendly |
legislation" telling the Black Republicans /
that, no matter Ohdt the Supreme Court |
might decide as to the abstract question of I
right, they might practically nullify the de
cision by this cunning device Of his, design
ed to point out an eflectua mode of evading
a constitutional obligation. Not content, 4
however, with this open Justification of his |
pledge, this utter Inconsistency of conduct,
Mr. Douglas, in later times, has resortcd to
this subterfuge:- that the question in dis
pute has never been decided by the Supreme
Court in a case arising under the Kansas
act and he now pretends that
his pledge embraced no decision made ia
any other case! A principle, however, deci
lcd by the Court to be correct, can derive no
additional force from the circumstance that
The decision is pronounced in one case, rath-
ar than in another.
Again: the South is additionally opposed
to protective tariffs, and in favor of the doc
trines Of free trade. Mr.. Douglas, for many
years past, has consistently advocated the
Southern policy; but few days since,
speaking to Pennsylvania audience, who
were clamorous for protection to their coal
and iron interests, he deliberately 'took the
back track" swallowed all his previous theo-
ries, condemned all his own anti-tariff votes,
and made wholesale bid for Northern sup
port, coming out, "fat-footed," in favor of
protective tariff
Further: the mass of the Southern peo-