Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-09-21
Three PrOpOsEeiOns--A Question
to BrGCkEMrfGge SUPPORTERS.

I'd. That the Federal Government can CO.
cree State into obedience of Federal
mandates, or, if she withdraws from the
Union, can whip her in.
Sd. An expression Of preference for Brock
enridge or Bell.
A sufficient response to the first interrog-
atory might be gathered from the platform
on which the National Democratic party
have placed their candidates The Cincin-
natl platform does not endorse and does not
repudiate the idea that Territorial Legis-
lature, or the people of a Territory, whilst
in that condition, can enact laws adverse to
slavery in the Territories. It purposely
withholds an expression of opinion in that
regard. The reasons for this are well sta
ted by Senator Hunter, in the o. S. Senate.
that there was diversity (this is not given
verbatim, but the substantial idea, Of SEN
timent on an immaterial point between mem
bers Of the Democratic party, as to the time
when Territory, OF its people, or agents,
could determine the fate Of the institution
of slavery, and that this was removed to a
tribunal for settlement which placed it high
er than party edicts or individual opinion
the tribunal Of the U. s. Court. Whilst the
Cincinnati platform does not propose to sum
der the party by taking sides either pre- or
con "Squstter Sovereignty" it does most
emphatically assert the doctrine Of NonIn-
PREVENTION by Congress with slavery in State
and Territory, or in the District of Column
bia. See Cluskey p. 1879, sec. IL; where
in is also to be found an explicit approba-
ton of the principles Of the KansasNebras-
ka Bill. This Kansas Nebraska bill was o
transfer Of the whole subject of slavery
in the Territories 10 the Judiciary It
was an ejectment Of the question from
the halls of Congress where it had been
the bone of angry and violent conten-
ton from 1820--to that arena where il
would affect only the persons interested,
which persons, if injured by local laws, had
the right Of appeal to the judicial powers
for protection and justice. Then, the Gin
cinnati platform not being Squatser Soyer-
eign-not being designed to be Sqnatter
Sovereign-the Kansas Nebraska bill not
being Squatter Sovereisn-its advocate not
arguing it to bet is not just OF proper
TO accuse those who, through patriotic poll
cy-which looks to the preservation of the
Union from disruption, and the temple OF
freedom from the communicating hands Of alb
clifton misoreants-as advocates Of Squatter
Sovereignty. It is a solvable point whether
the majority of the people of the Territory
have the right to abolish slavery till it be-
comes State Judge Douglas agrees with US
on that subject and we both concur to refer
the whole matter to the Courts OF the T. S :,
and that reference being made, the decisions
arising therefrom must be obeyed, and must
be enforced by all the implements Of power
under the Federal Government Case after
case may arise, and as they DO, the same
perpetual fountain of relief is granted to anT
aggrieved -unawed and unIismayed, as
well as uninauenced by political expecta-
ton of reward or punishment. We differ from
Mr.. Yancey ct id onne genus in this, thas
whilst they prefer Congressional interven-
ton for protection, we prefer judicial prosee-
ton. Neither, we believe, will ever be ask
ed, for the reason that Territorial Legis-
lature will protect slavery if it is profitable
in the country, and If not profitable, no one
will be impolitic or unthinking enough to
desire to own or hold them. But, before
closing our remarks on this subject We
would ask you, what is your opinion Of the
latter clause Of the 14th section of the Kan
sas Nebraska act, taken in connection with
the explanation of Mr. Badger, its author,
when it was submitted to and sustained by
the South-Did it or not, coupled with the
assertion Of its intent. negative all idea Of
any protection by Congress of slavery in q
Territory? What does it mean? You
should refer to Badgers speech Introducing
the amendment in order to answer fully.
It has been asserted, however. that the
bred Scott case decided that neither Con-
gressional or Territorial legislative power
can consttutionally influence adversely the
institution of slavery in Territory. It has
tStE pS6i OuI jIS5olOd AdN
that righs-that by negative, or rather By
non action, the Territorial Legislature may.
we have the authority Of Mr.. Orr offs c.,
Davis, of Miss, and Cobb, Of Ga That
the decision Of the bred Scott case did not
determine the powers on the question Of
slavery with the people Of a Territory or the
Legislature thereof. in an authoritative man
ner, Revcrdy johnson, perhaps the bright
est ornament of the American bar, himself
the advocate in behalf OF the South in that
very case, has published to the world. Ad-
nit, however. that this decision did involve
justly, pointedly and legally, the examina-
ton and determination of the point at diff
ference-would this abfogate the Kansas
Nebraska act, and re-transfer this vexed
question from judicial protection to Con-
gressional? We think there is nothing in
the nature Of the question, nothing in the
intent Of the Nebraska bill, nothing in the
preceaents Ct judicial decisions, nothing in
the necessity Of the country, or in the de-
mands Of a just and enlightened public,
which will warrant such a conclusion. So
soon as case in point arises, the Courts
are the tribunal for redress, and the citizens
of Virginia on the decision of the Courts
that the exemption actor the poor law,
commonly called-protects certain articles
from distress from rent, can as we'll EXPECT