New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-05-05

vOte for the next PfetideiL We presume 'o~ eau
doubt: and it was but naked justice that her Five
Thousand voting Democrats, who stood at the polls
through three several Elections last year in tho
face of certain defeat, should have had voics in
selecting the candidate. She can poll moro Dem
ouatic vote. this dsy than either Oregon orF1orida;
which States formed the majority in tho Com.
mittee on Organization which kept her Delegates out
of sests IN the Convention Had they bees present
and voting, Mr.. Douglas would have had MAORI
ty of the whole number Of delegates in full Con-
fairly urged that several delegates from this and
from one or two North. Western States we're over
ruled by tbs majority o. their respective delegations,
and did not vote their undivided preference, it must
also be considsred that several delegates from
Southern States were likewise coercsd into voting
against Mr.. Douglas, though they desired to vote
for him. Add noue can pretend that MIR. Douglas
received the vote. of a single Stats of which tho
Democracy is not heartily for him; willie the votes
of New.Jersey, Delaware, California, Oregon, and
nearly half Massachusetts,, were thrown against
him. whom the Democracy Of each ia at heart de-
cidedy for him. lie may be juggled out OF tho
nomination at Baltimore; but, If he doss, t8o-thrds
of the Democratic voters in the Union will DO
sorely disappointed.
Mir. Douglas is not merely the fret choice oil the
Democratic marses: he is the champion of their
cherished principles, the embodiment OF their ideas.
That we do not speak at random on this point, let
recorded facts bear witness. Mr. Daniel s. Dickn-
son has hitherto been regarded as Que OF the very
hardest of Shells; yet here is the proposition
wherein he deliberately and carefully embodied his
view Of the Territorial question. He submitted 1t
TO the U. S. Senate on the 18th of December lSl7
as follows:
ritcJ.. belonging to the United States principle Of .el
upon which ederaive system rests will De best
spirit and meaning OF the be 90
served sud the Conedersey stensth.ned by leaving ~ 9ass
ton. the domestic policy therein to tho Legislatures
chosen by the people thereoL
Does any one know Z. Northern Democrat, not
Free-Soii or Wilmot- Provis0 man, who, ten years
ago. did not stand On this identical PLATFORM We
do not. IT, then, Mr. Douglas is ostracised now, it
| will be simply because be has not dumped jim
"Crow" with the facility Of some of bis rivals.
-" What are you for Douglas 2" queries some
L
think that the Republicans Of Illinois would have
done wisely had they consented to his reelection as
Senator 10 1853. We were just as well then as
now aware that his views did not accord on very
grave questions with theirs and with ours; but We
thought it would have been an act Of magnsnimity
a testimonial of admirDg regard for his course on
the Lecompton bill, which would have reflected
honor alike on gver and receiver, aud could have
done BARN to neither. The opportunity passed
We blamed none, but TOOK uncomplaninely the CEN
sures of those who disagreed with us. Weare sure
that they meant to be right.
AS candidate for President, Mr.. Douglas stands
in direct and deadly antagonism to cur most cher
shed principles. In other words, he stands on the
Cincinnati Platform, Interpreted BY the light OF the
| bred Scott decision. We stand On the antagonist
platform of the Jeflersonisn Proyiso Of 170l-the
| Washinetonisn inhibition of 1880. II It was
rieht -as we surely mold lr-rur Jefferson ~ pro-
pose and support the prohibition. after 1900, OF
Slavery FOREVER in the Federal Territories and for
Washington to sign bill embodying the principle
fsuch prOhibition-tben Judge Douglas is radically
wrong For he is a chief apostle of the Gospel OF
Indference-a champion Of nOn-action against
Slavery in the Territories. In one Of his latest
speeches-lhst Of January Odd las!-Mr. Douglas
says:
"The creed of that the Republican, party is founded
upon the theory that because Slavery Is not desirable
in our S.ate s desirable anywhere; because free
labor lie good thing with us it must be the best thing
everywhere. Ia other WORDS toe creed OF their party
rests upon the theory that the;e must be uniformity In
tbs domestic institutions aud internal poty OF the sew
era States of this Union There in my opinion ia the
funds mental error upon which Their whole system res;s
il the Illinois csDyass asserted, and now repeat,
that uniformity in the domestic institutions OF the dit
feIent States il neither possible desirable. That lie
the very issue upon which conducted the canvass at
home aud ii is the question which desire TO present
10 the Senate l repeat, that uniformity domes-
nc institutions Of The different States is neither possible
nor desirable"
In ether words-t is not desirable that oil our
States should DO Free Labor States; is desirable
that some Of them should be Slave States We
| csn hardly remember Northern Statesman of any
| party from 1875 to 1896, who put forth such
sentiment Is this. How its author can even afisc;
| TO condemn the African Slayc-Tradc, We cannot
| imagine. For if il be- desirable TO have Slave
States, it is desirable to have Slaves; and who has
authorized the Free Siat,s to dictate to Florida
and Texas as to how many slaves they shall have,
or the quarter whence those slaves shall be drawn
II ia gross impertipepce and arrogance TO attempt
aueht of the kind, unless Slavery be deemed moral
and political evil.
In that speech, Mr.. Douglas resssetts, for the
hundredth time, his Inability to perceive any moral
difference between hiring free laborers aud pay ing
them their stipulated wages on tho one hand, and
keeping them at work By the terrOrs of the horse
ubin and revolver IN the other Hear him.