The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1860-08-01

gress, but arising from right of selfgov-
rnment--concurred in solemn declara.
tion that the action of every Territorial
Legislature should be subject to the pro.
hibtions, limitation and principles express
sed in the Constitution of the United
States, 80 go= r .7H
Aud. in order to provide convenient
method for attesting the constitutionality
of any act which Territorisl Legislature
might adopt, whether. for the prohibition
or the maintenance of slavery, in case any
citizen should feel aggrieved by such Leg
islation, the right of appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States was so enlar-
ged by the 9th and 9th sections of the
bill," decided by the supreme court of a
Territory, without regard to value of the
matter, property, or title in controversy"
and also all cases decided by the court
last named, or by any district court of a
Territory, or any judge Of either of the
said courts, "upon any writ of habeas
corpus involving the question of personal
freedom" The plain object of these pro-
visions was to Danish all discussion of the
subject of slavery within the Territories,
except the enforcement of the fugitive
slave act, from the Congress of the United
States, and thus localize, as far as possible,
every controversy to which that subject
could give occasion. IT, as in the case
of Kansas, a Territorial Legislature should
exclude slavery: or, as in the case of New
Mexico, should protect and maintain it,
those who desired to contest the authori-
ty of the legislature, one way or another,
could resort to the courts of justice with
their claims, ard, by the decision of the
highest appellate tribunal--namely, the
Supreme Court of the United States
all such claims would be determined. 1t
was foreseen. as an argument for withdraw.
ing the authority of Congress, (evep ad-
hitting the existence of such authority,)
that slave labor would seek only those
regions where it could be pro6tably en-
ployed; and wherever it could be SO en-
ployed, as in New Mexico, including Ari-
zonia, it would be sufficiently protected by
local legislation. The result has shown
that slavery now prevails almost exactly
| where it would have been established 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been repealed, but had been, as the South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 36 deg.
80. 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, that the
Laws of Kansas prohibiting slavery shoulG
be annulled, his demand was only second.
ed by Senator johnson OF Arkansas anG
Senator Mallory Of Florida, and upor
T the other hand, when the Black Republi
cans proposed bill for ahrogating th'
laws Of New Mexico 10 favor of slavery
/ all the Democratic Representatives il
Congress, South and North, as well as al
the southern Opposition members, agreed
in resisting it. The fact is notorious, al
So that by the assistance of Mr. Thaye
of Massachusetts, and others of his par
3 ty in the House, the Democrats and South
ern Oppositionists were enabled to defea
E Dumber of Territorial bills containin,
, the Wilmot proviso 1t was eviden,
| therefore, when our national convention
D reassembled at Baltimore on the 18th 9
i June, that the wisdom of the Democrat
, party in adhering to the doctrine of non
intervention through every trial and re
n verse; would soon be rewarded by tr
/, umph no less signal than that which al
= tended our opposition to bank of th
: United States and our devotion to th
d principles of the Independent Treasur
t act. If, in the estimation of all. excef
n three supporters of the Senatorial caucu
" resolutions, so called, declaring that Coz
}. gress ought to intervene for the protectio
J. of slave property in the Territories, 'whe
i necessary the express abolition of slav'
n ry in Kansas by territorial act did M
d constitute case Of necessity for sue
4, Intervention, what possible case ev,
b could arise?
No Democrat will deny the obligatie
of the Federal Government to suppre
insurrections within Territory, and
J, enforce, even as against Territorial enac
,e ments, a final Judgment Of the Supren
RS Court of the United States Nor can
l. be denied that Congress may. in certa
of extreme cases, beyond the power of r
at dress by judicial interposition, revoke
al amend charter of Territorial organic
h. tion. For what useful purpose, then W
O. the agitation of SO dangerous questi'
y, renewed by President Buchanan in b
r, last annual. message, or inflamed by &
I'd resolutions of Senatorial caucus, a
ze finally thrust upon the Democratic N
b. tional Convention at Charleston?
81 81 EXCUSES FOR ALTERING TH
~ CINCINNATI IsPLATFORM.
ct It is said, in excuse, that the principl
e. enunciated by the Supreme Court of t
b. United States in the case of Dred SEQ
be lead to the conclusion that Territor
in Legislature has no more authority ov
K the subject of slavery than Congress, a
K that Congress, equally with the Territor