Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-06-08
What we are Quarreling Over.

| Some of the Democratic leaders are hunt
ing the Popular Sovereignty men as ardent
| " as ever zeaot hunted the most deadly
hereto What IS the real question among
| Democrats, which is thought sufficient to
justify this mortal war among us? The
Democratic party agreed to leave it to
the people, of the Territories to gov
ern themselves in their own way sub
ject only to the Cen stitution Of the United
States; and agreed further to- accept the
ruling of the Supreme Court, as to the ex-
tent of Territorial power over the subject Of
slavery. We all agree to thai now How
! then do we differ? The following colloqny
| between Senators Pugh and Wigfall, du-
ring the speech of the latter, explains
Mr.. Pugh. understood, and I had
some occasion to pay attention to it at the
timc-why I shall not say-that Mr.. Bu-
chanan expressed it as his opinion that they
could only act upon the subject of slavery
in forming State Constitution buthe ack-
nowledged that it was an open question. and
to be decidedly the Supreme Court Of the
United States.
Mr.. Wigfall. And say the Supreme
Court has decided. Gin the bred Scott
/ cas-. l# sf
Mr., .Pugh. That IS the pAoze point of
the CONTROVERSY. The Senator then subSti-
tutes question of fact for question Of
principle He has undertaken to divide
the Democratic party because we are not
all able TO understand a particular decision
alike, well knowing that dozen lawyers
sitting down might very well come to diff
ferent conclusions.
Mr.. Douglas, in his late speech, also
said @
We differ only on law point; let the
court decide that and I only ask that you
will bow to the decision Of the court with
the same submission that shall, and carry
1t out with the same good faith. want
no new issue. [ want no new test.
n X x T care not
whether you agree Or differ with me on the
points Of law that have divided US. xIfyon
should happen to be right, and wrong, it
would not prove that you were a better De-
mocrat than I but that you were better
lawyer than am, so far as that one branch
of law is concerned. should not have
pride Of opinion on the point Of law but for
the fact that you have got into the habit of
calling me Judge" Laughter having,
among my youthful indlscretions, accepted
thet Office, and acquired the title and do
claim that, with that title. have right 70
think as please on point Of law until the
Court decides that am wrong.
The point is, the Popular Sovereignty
men think that the Territorial Legislatures
have powers over the question Of slavery
greater than Congress has. and thst the
question Of Territorial poaoers (not Congress
sionaz powers)wss not decided land not even
raised. in the bred Scott decision. Rev
erdy Johnson, vho'vas counsel in that case,
says the same thing. He says: ''Haying
argued the case twice as the friend of the
South, and bestowed upon all the questions
it involved the most careful study could, |
state with perfect confidence that the ques-
ton Of Territorial power, was not only not
decided by the Court, but was neither ar
gued nor presented in any way for decision
The single inquiry in this connection was,
Had Congress the power to prohibit slavery |
in Territory 2,
Under these circumstances, is it unreal
sonable that these men should still hold their
opinions just as we hold and declare ours,
until the umpirage to which We have all
appealed shah speak at least more clearly
on the point involved It is but point of
law that divides US, for all have agreed to
accept the legal decision as the principle Of
the case. Why, then, can't we wait a lit
tie? We all admit there is no present evil
to remedy. Why this hot haste to scourge
men cut Of the party, when they plead, and /
Justly plead, our own pledged faith as their
claim for better treatment? Let US cease
this mad and unjustifablo and ruinous war.
= Virginia Sentinel