The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-08-03
tected by local legislation. The result has

if the Missouri compromise line had never
been repealed, but had been, as the South
demanded from 1916 until 1850, extended
to the Pacific ocean; that portion of the
Territory of New Mexico north of &c deg.
30 min. being an equivalent for the arid
regions of California south of the same line
Practically, therefore the whole dispute
has been settled so that when Senator
Brown, of Mississippi, demanded, at the ses-
sion of Congress just concluded, the laws of
Kansas prohibiting slavery, should be an
nuled, his demand was only seconded by
Senator johnson, of Arkansas, and Senator
Mallory, of Florida and upon the other
hand, when the Black Republicans proposed
a bill for abrogating the laws of New Mex
leo in favor of slavery, all the Democratic
Representatives in Congress, South and
North, as we'll as all the southern Opposi>
ton members, agreed in resisting it, The
fact is notorious, also, than by the assistance
of Mr.. Thayer, of Massachusetts, and other
of his party in the House, the Democrats
and Southern Opposition were enabled to
defeat number of Territorial bills contain
ing the Wilmot proviso. 1t was evident
therefore, when our national convention re-
assembled at Baltimore on the 18th of June,
that the wisdom of the Democratic party, in
adhereing to the doctrine of mon interview
tion," through every trial and reverse,
would soon be rewarded by triumph no
less signal than that which attended our op-
position to bank of the United States and
our devotion to the principles of the Inde-
pendent Treasury act. If, in the estimation
of all, except three supporters of the Sena-
torial caucus resolutions, so called, declar
ing that Congress ought to intervene for the
protection of slave property in the Terrific
ries, "when necessary" the express aboli-
ton of slavery in Kansas by territorial
act did not constitute case of necessity for
such intervention, what possible case ever
could arise?
No Democrat will deny the obligation of
the Federal Government to suppress insur-
rectons within Territory, and to enforce
even as against Territorial enactments, a
final judgment of the Supreme Court of the
United States. Nor can it be denied that
Congress may, in certain extreme cases, be-
yond the power of redress by judicial inter-
position, revoke or amend charter of Ter
ritorial organization. For what useful pur-
pose, then, was the agitation of so danger
Gus question renewed by President Blu
chanan in his last annual message, or in,
famed by the resolutions of a Senatorial
caucus, and finally thrust upon the Demo-
cratic National Convention at Charleston ?
EXCUSES FOR ALTERING THE CINCINNATI
PLATFORM.
1t is said, in excuse, that the principles
enunciated by the Supreme Court of the
United States in the case OF bred Scott
lead to the conclusion that a Territorial
Legislature has no more authority over the
subject of slavery, than Congress, and that
Congress, equally with the Territorial Leg
islatures, is under obligation to protect as
well the possession as the title of slave
property in the Territories. We do not
now intend to debate this assertion, one way
or another. 1t is admitted universally that
no such question was presented by the re-
cord Of bred SCOTS case, nor argued by
counsel at the bar and whatever the con
clusion at which any Democrat might ar
rive, upon reading the opinions delivered by
the several judges, that conclusion cannot
be so clear of doubt as to warrant him iu
censuring those who, with an equal desire
to ascertain the truth, have attained anoth-
er conclusion.
We must all agree that if the Supreme
Court do not intend to decide that question
las many believe,) it would be an act Of
bad faith, in violation of the very terms OF
the Kansas Nebraska bill, to commit the
Democratic party, Us national organiea-
tion, to either side; whereas, if the Court
did so intend, nothing is more certain
than that whenever the question shall dis
tinctly arise, and be fairly argued, the court
will express its determination in language
so plain as to command universal acquies-
cence. Thejudgment of the Supreme Court
in bred SCOTS case has been carried into
full execution; and whatever judgment II
may hereafter pronounce, in a case depend
ing on the validity or invalidity of Terri
torial enactments, must be and will be ex-
ecuted with equal alacrity and confidence
But, evidently, until some Territorial Legis
lature shall, by its enactments, have i'm.
paired the right of property in slaves, there
can be no use in agtating such questions; and
if, as the authors of the Senatorial caucus re-
solutions have declared by their votes, the
case of Kansas to be not proper case for
Congressional Intervention, it is difficult tc
imagine any other in which necessity for
such intervention will arise.
1t is said, however, that the Democratic
party thus occupies an equivocal position
and that the Cincinnati platform is rendered
susceptible of two interpretations. This
pretext is merely plausible. The platform
has no double meaning, and but one sensible
Interpretation. 1t declares against Con
gressional Intervention plainly, openly, and
unequivocally; but refers the question Of
what power-if any-a Territorial legisla
ture can exercise for the prohibition or the
maintenance of slavery, as Territorial in.
stitution, to the adjudication of the Supreme
Court of the United States. Democrats
may differ as to what the Court should or
will decide; but they have stipulated, what.
ever the decision may be, to carry that de,
cisiOn into effect.
1t has been argued also, inasmuch as one
duty of government is the protection OF
property, in return for the allegiance of its
subjects, that the Federal Government can
not abdicate authority with respect to the
Territories, but should constantly exercise
a power of immediate legislation for the pro.
lection of property as we'll as persons within
them. This proposition also, is merely
plausible. 1t ignores the fact that Congress
must have, and has always exercised choice