Daily national Democrat., 1860-10-02
Herschel v. johnson.

"lhe DOuglHsltCs dengNt 10 Chafge that the
National Democracy are disunionists, because
they adhere to the doctrine of equal righsin
the Territories, that is, that the Northern
man and the southern man may go into the
territories, each with his peculiar kind OF
property, and be protected 10y their govern
ment in the possession and enjoyment Of that
property; and that ho power on earth can
take it from them
The above is very silly statement. The
charge of disurion designs on the part of the
secessionis,s, or portion Of the secessionists
at least, is not made because Of their doctrine
relative to the power or duty of Congress to
pass law for the protection Of property in
the territories but because they allege that
the refusal 10y Congress to pass such a law,
will be deemed by them sufficient cause why
they should seeede from the Union.
They lead us to belrve, that they will
shortly demand Of Congress to pass law for
the protection Of property in the territories
whether the people there want it or not
This is one reason why the charge Of dis
union movement on their part has been made
and there are other reasons, which it is use
less now to mention.
But it was of Herschel V. Johnson that we
set out to speak. The Express attempts to
show, that if its party or any portion of its
party can be called dsuuonists, Hersche Y.
johnson can be SO called, because he believes
in Congressional Intervention. 1t tells us
that in lS4S he made a speech in the United
States Senate 'to prove that Congress had
the power and the right to interfere to pro-
tect slave property in the territories" and
that he was a member of the Georgia Conyen.
tion which met on the 4th of June last to
send delegates to Baltimore, and that he
drafted and reported resolutions for adoption
by that Convection. 1t quotes the resolutions
to show that he still holds to the doctrine of
Congressional Intervention. Suppose he does
what follows? Why this, viz:-that in
supporting Douglas he is doing nothing more
nor less, than many others are doing who
differ with Douglas, as to what the Supreme
Court decided in the Dred Scott case. He
knows that Judge Douglas will abide the
decision Of that high tribunal relative to
territorial power property, whenever such
decision shall be rendered, or if it has already
been rendered, Thousands agree with Judge
Douglas in his opinion in this matter, and no
one can conscientiously say that they are not
sincere in that opinion. Besides this, the
e present position Of He, schel V. Johnson
proves another thing. 1t proves the low es-
timation in which he holds the secessionists
and that he will not weigh a mere abstract
principle against the value of this Union He
may have urged the adoption of a different
platform by the National Convention-he
may always have been in favor of Congress-
ional Intervention, but for all that he is in
our humble opinion a consistent Democrat
inasmuch as he stands 10y the Democratic Or
ganzation, and yields obedience to the will
Of his party. The mere fact of his running
for Vice President, on the same ticket with
Douglas, cannot be taken into consideration
as showing any more alleged Inconsistency
on his part, than on the part Of other surpor-
ters of Douglas, who hold to the policy Of
b Congressional Intervention.
lie saw the diff of the secession at Charles.
ton. He saw that it was most unwise, and
dangerous to the party. He saw that Doug
las was the choice of the Democracy and
although Douglas differed wit him on ques-
tion of Democratic policy, or principle if you
will, he would waive all differences of opin-
ion on that point, and receive the platform
that the Convention adopted. Like Douglas,
! he doubtless saw that Intervention as claimed
10y the leaders and fomenters of the secession,
meant disunion. He knew that the voice of
the Democracy as uttered in the National
Convention, was not for an Intervention pol
icy, and lie ocqueisced in the judgement
The Convention having refused to adopt such
E policy, he could still 60 on acqueisce in the
wishes of his party, in giving his support to
stephen a. Douglas as the man most likely
to lead them to victory Contrast his course
with that of Lane and Dickinson, and how
far above them he appears. He, an adyo,
cate for Intervention, foregoes that idea for
the sake of the harmony and good of the
party. They, of late advocates of non nteryen
tion trample upon the platform adopted by the
Convention after trying in vain day in and day
out to be nominated upon it. lie, was aetu-
ated by the desire for the good of the party,
and its success against the Republicans; they
10y enmity to Stephen A. Douglas They claim
that the SuDran,a Count hos Joo;1,1 ol..-.-.
ly to the legislative power over property.
We grant they are sincere, but they ought
certainly to admit that the thousands who
disagree with them on this point. are also
sincere. Besides, it matters not at the pres
ent time, what the decision of the Supreme
Court may have been. Those who ought TO
know, state that a case directly involving the
question as to the power of the Territorial
Legislature over property, ives not brought
brefore the Court, nor do we know that any
Of the secessionists allege that it was. The
whole Democratic party, and we trust the
whole country will acquiesce in the decision
on this subject, whatever it may be, when
finally rendered. The discussion of the ques-
tion as to what the Court decided. is useless
For if as She seceders allege. the Supreme
Court has decided that Congress may inter
yene to protect property, it follows from their
own averment that such protection will no t
be needed until the Territorial Legislature
shall have failed to protect; and that failure
to protect, is a contingency not near at hand.