The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1860-07-26
BrecxinriGge and DOuglas-Slaye
Code and SQuatIer Sovereignty.

which of these two Presidential candi-
djdates, is entitled most to the respect
of Republicans, there are reasons
WHY one is more favorably regarded
than the other. Bre ckinridge represents
an unequivooal position; his principles
admit Of no double interpretation--no
conflicting constructions are given to
the platform on which he and his sup>
porters profess to stand. Not so with
} Mr.. Douglas; his Popular Sovereignty
doctrines are expounded widely differ
2 ent by his followers. ..... /
The Breckenridge party have the ad-
vantage over the Douglas faction, in the
matter of consistency, logic and argus
ment. The first principle or starting
! point of the Breckenridge men is right
it is as old as the democratic party
in fact as old as the hist DRY of national
legislation IN our government. 1t rec
ognizes the controlling power of Con-
gress over the Territories. All Con-
gressional legislation in respect to the
Territories, since the confederation Of
the original Thirteen States, has been
on the principle that the Territories are
the property of the United States, and
subject to Congressional control during
+ their minority. Even the famous Kan
sas- Nebraska Act; which the advocates
ofPopular Sovereignty claim, as the ex-
ponent of their principles. recognizes
Congressional Intervention it places
the Executive aud Judicial power of that
Territory under the control of the Pre-
siJent- Mr.. Douglas claims great Gre
dit on account of the principles of popu-
lar right, which it is alleged the Kansas
and Nebraska Act contains: but all the
merit the friends of that Act can claim
for it, is that is repealed the slavery pro
hibition, of the Missouri Compromise,
thereby instituting an irrepressible and
bloody conflict between freedom and
slavery on the soil Of Kansas.
The Breckenridge party charge that
Douglas Popular Sovereignty is new
dogma, unknown in The early history of
the party; inconsistent and selfcontra-
dictory. In this the Breckenridge par
.ty is right, and has the proofso TO make
it appear. Popular Sovereignty starts
by throwing out to the people specious
delusion-a sham exhibition Of fairness.
1t processes to give the people the right
to control and shape their own institu-
tons, including domestic slavery, and
vauntingly exclaims, I" is that not right !?
arc the people not sovereign are they
not capable, and have they not the right
to selfgovernment % All this looks
plausible, and is calculated to enlist the
popular feeling, especially of that class
who do not look at those other doctrines
held by Mr.. Douglas, which fatty con
tradict the right of the people to reg'late
their own Institutions There seems to
be an idea prevailing among large
class of the supporters of Mr.. Douglas,
that Popular Sovereignty has the merit
of allowing the people of a Territory to
adopt or reject slavery as they may
think fit; this is a popular delusion--a
cheat and sham. In proof of this, let
Mr.. Douglas himself be brought to the
stand as witness. In his late letter of
acceptance of the nomination for the
Presidency, he fully endorses the new
plank in the platform of the party, adop-
ted at Baltimore This plank pledges
the party to regard as conclusive, the
decision of the Supreme Court, in re-
spect to the power of a Territorial LIE
GESTURE over slavery, " as the same has
been, or may hereafter be-"
Now what has been the decision of the
decision of the Supreme Court in the
matter, which the party has pledged it.
self to regard as conclusive? The points
are given in the 9th volume of How
ards Reports, page 395, as follows:
Sd. "E'rery citizen has right to
take a0ith him into the Territory arey
article of property ohich the ConStitu
ton Ofthe United States recognizes as
property"
4h. " The Constitution Of the Uni
ted States recognizes Slaves as property
and pledges the Government to PROTECT
IT." I .. t..
In addition to this let Mr.. Douglas be
heard in his own language; he certainly
ought to be taken as authority by those
who advocate his claims to the Presi-
dency. In aspeech made by Mr. Dou
glas at New Orleans, December 1853,
the following language occurs
"I in common with the Democracy
Illinois, accept the decision of the Su.
nreme Court of the United States, in
the bred Scott case, as an authoritative
exposition of the Constitution What,
ever limitations the Constitution, as eX-
pounded by the Courts, imposes on the
authority Of Territorial Legislature,
we cheerfully recognize and respect IN
conformity with that decision. Slaves
are recognized as property and placed
on an equal footing with all other pros
perty. Hence the owner of slaves-the
same as the owner Of. any other species
of property--has a right to remove to
Territory and carry his property with
him" nge 8ecTiiaH I'D
This testimony ought to3be sufficient
.s7soG9sseQ 10 9buit'um