East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1860-08-02
EAST SAGINAW, MICHIGAN, AUGUST 2, 1860.

aud Will be executed with cqual alacnty
and confidence. But, evidently, until
some Territorial Legislature shall, by its
enactments, have impaired thelright OF
property in slaves, there can be no use
in agitating such questions; and il, as
the authors of the senatorial CAUCUS reso-
lutions have declared by their votes, the
case of Kansas be not proper case for
Congressional Intervention, it is difficult
to imagine any other in which necessi-
ty for such Intervention will arise.
1t is said, however, that the democratic
party thus occupies an equirocal position,
and that the Cincinnati platform is rem
dered susceptible of two interpretations.
This pretext is merdy plausible. The
platform has no double meaning, and but
one sensible Interpretation. 1t declares
against Congressional Intervention plain
ly, openly and uneqaivocally; but refers
the question, what ,power-if any-a
Territorial Legislative can exercise for
the prohibition or the maintenance of
slavery as Territorial institution, 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, whatever the
decision may be, to carry that decision
into effect.
1t has been argued, also, inasmuch as
one duty of government is the protec-
tion Of property in teturn for the allegi-
a. ce of its subjects, that the Federal
government cannot abdicate authority
with respect to the territories, but should
constantly exercise power of immedi-
ate Legislation for the protection of prop
erty AS well as persons within them. This
proposition, also, is merely plausible. 1t
ignores the fact that Congress must
have, and has always, exercised choice
of instrumentalities. 1t ignores the fact,
also, that the duties of government have
been divided under our American system
into those of Federal and those of State,
Territorial, and even of county, parish,
and municipal character. All these taken
together constitute the government of
which, and of which only, the proposition
can truly be predcated, and, unless we
adopt the maxims of the old Federal
party which our fathers repudiated in
1899 and 1900, we must deny that the
government of the United States can af
ford any protection, except in Fed eral
capacity, to property of any description;
all other duties of protection having
been wisely sonfded to State or Terrific
rial, and, in some cases, to merely muni-
cipal authorities. 1t is true, undoubtedly,
that all forms of property recognized by
the laws of the respective States com
posing our confederation are entitled to
equal regard by their common Federal
agent; but to affirm that il shall, under
the pretence of protecting right of
property, usurp any power not clearly
delegated by the States in the terms of
their compact with each other, is to af-
firm doctrine fraught with the most
fatal consequences. The question is not
whether property in slaves, or any other
form of property, shall be protected in
the States or in the Territories, or else
where; the question is by which of the
several divisions of government with us,
and to what extent by each, this protec-
tion shall be afforded. 1t is controver-
sy, therefore, involving the whole ground
of difference between the democratic
party and the various parties by which,
in the history of our country, the demo-
cratic party has been opposed. The first
inclination of every democrat should be
to resist, as far as he can lawfully, the
exercise of any power by the Federal
government, within the States, within
the Territories, or anywhere else, until a
clear and definite delegation of such
power by the several States can be pro-
ven from the language or necessary i'm.
port of the constitution of the United
States.
We have thus endeavored to show you,
fellow w-citizens, that the conduct of the
democratic party, with reference to the
subject of slavery in the Territories, has
been distinguished for moderation, for
wise and wholesome craftsmanship, for
regard to the limited nature of the Fed
eral government, to the res erved rights
of the States AMI the people, to the
peace, the welfare, the continual preserv-
alton of that Union which has made us a
miracle among the nations.
CHARLESTON CONVENTION.
When our national convention assem-
bled in the city of Charleston, on the Odd
of April, it exhibited condition Of affairs
unlike that of any other political conven-
ton of this year. Every State of the
Union was fully represented. What
American citizen, whether of southern or
northern birth-from the Atlantic or the
Pacific coast--from the inland seas which
border upon Canada, from the valley of
the imperial Mississippi, from the States
looking out upon the Gulf of Mexico
did not rejoice on beholding what seem
ed to be, in very truth, council of the
whole Republic? Why that council fail
ed in its purpose, wherefore it was dis
tracted, by whom and in what manner,
we must now proceed to relate.
The democratic convention of Alabama
assembled at Montgomery in January,
1860, to appoint delegates from the State
to the Charleston convention. 1t chose
to declare the opinion entertained by q
majority of its members, that no Terri
torial Legislature had any right to pro-
hibit the institution of slavery, aud that
the constitution of the United States was