The Texas Republican. [volume] (Marshall, Tex.) 1849-1869, 1860-05-19
NO. 50.


tAat Doly, ana lhe sectssiun vi th' u'i'-
gates Of the nine States Of the South
Even the well Informed Bee Processes rs
, inability, to appreciate the dill renee be
tween the two parties. II is therefore,
necessary that we should state clearly
and distinctly the real issue
The Committee ON Resolutions divided
only on tie question Of the status Of
slavery in the Territories A najori',
Of seventeen >ta.es reported the follow
ing resolutions
Rssolrsd. That the platform adopted At cin
einnaii be- affirmed With the following resolutions
Hsso,esd. That the Democracy Of ~
United States hold these cardinal priaaipls o.
the ssbec, Of slavery in the Territories Frs.
That congress has DO power TO abolish slavery
in the Territories Second, That the Terrific
rial Legislator. has no power 10 abolish slavery
10 any Territory. nor 10 prohibit the introduction
Of slayea therein. nor any power TO exclude
slavery ,heFcffom nor any power 10 destroy OF
impair the .ieh' Of property IN slaves hy any
legislation whatever
The Minority Report, voted for by si&-
teen States, is as follows
| Rssolpei, That We, the Democracy Of the
Union. 10 convention assembled, hereby declare
adopted and declared as platform Of prir eiplss
/ hy The Democratic Convention AT tlneianati, n
the year s5s believing that Democratic pgin-
ciplts ARE nurhasgeable in their nature wles
app.ay. ta the same sabjeci matters and we r.
commend 81 the ons further resolution The FOL
/ ioxlu.
/ p R,alrsi That all questions in regard TO
the rih, 81 property Ia States or Territories.
arising under the Constitution Of the United
States are judicial IN their character and III
, Democratic party Is pledged 10 abide by and
faithfully carry gu, such determination Of these
questions "a has been or may be made by The
@urniae Cour, Of the United States
The radical differences between these
two platforms consists ia the denial by
the majority OF the right Of a Territorial
+ Legislature T. prohibit or exclude slave
RS. or pass any laws hostile to that in
siiiullon. and the assertion by the M
'ftty that this que=tiHs As To fh. status
Of slavery 10 the Territories is a judicial
one, 10 be determined By the courts OF
the la j
The frs; consideration suggested by
comparison Of these resolutions is the
ouispokel candor and disiiuoiuess Of the
/ one, and the evasiveness Of the other
/ There is no m Understanding the ma.
.jority resoIu..; The Cincinnati plat
form left the sui ,ect OF slavery in tho
+ Territories unsettled /, was believed
the snhiec, being then before the ..u.
prcme Court-that those who We're ia
iouht would yield TO decision in favor
81 the right to hold slaves IN the Terri
tories. and Of the unconstituiionaliiy Of
( the Missouri Compromise The point
was saved on their account aud at their
request This concession was not made
by the South from any want Of conf
drure in the Justice and soundness Of
their position, OF from any belief in the
authority OF the Supreme Court to settle
and determine political doctrine, but it
was made as favor 10 those whore
views were net clear on tie point. aud
who were willing 10 defer to the decision
Of the Court Tie bred Scot. decision
settled the question, aid now there is no
lager reason why the Democracy
should evade or postpone the declaration
nf its opinion on this subject When the
friends # M Douglas, therefore, ask for
resuhmission Of this question which
it took the Supreme Court ,hriy.iour
years to consider aud do,erinine-~is is a
palpable dodge, transparent. dleiory
plea, OF a party which is afraid OF la.
not the honesty 10 meet the issue at once
or which intends 10 deceive and hetray
is confedera'es, by protesting TO hold
Doubts on'a subject. upon which in truth.
IT has already fixed and determined apin-
ions Mr. Douglas declares himself in
positive and unmistakatle terms. in ia,
vor of this view and opposed to tina, cx.
pressed in the majority resolution. lie
does uo require a decision Of tie Supreme
Court to determine his opinion in the
matter Nor does be intimate, whatever
might be tina, decision. that he would Weld
his convictions thereto And herein M
nouglas is right II is not Democratic
doctrine or practice to refer political oues.
tons TO the decision Of the supreme
Court That is, in fact. the old Federal
doctrine, 1t is the doctrine Of the old
Wing party, when il sought by the an.
thority u Chief Justice Marshall. and the
supreme Court. to establish The constiiu.
tionality Of the National Bank and Of the
tariff There is, therefore gross in.
consistency in the Douglasites pretend.
ing to adhere to the old Democratic plat.
forms, and proposing doctrine which is
opposed to tho uniform faith and prac.
tiee Of the party in all its previous his.
tory. The South never has and uoyer
will submit 10 this new ar,icle Of faith
II adopts and supports the doctrine Of
the Supreme Court IN the bred Scott case.
no, because it is the decision of the
Conrt but because it is right Those
who wafld do more than this have stray.
cd from the old faith. and il i'll becomes
them to pirate Of interpretations and new
IDEAS We should have fag moro respect
fer the pouglasites, il they would march
up to the question squaecfy and at once,
aud assert the which they
doubtless holi-that the Territories have
the righYto exclude slavery In their
foregoing resolution, they combine two
oHenses agains, Democracy, to-wit the
false doctrine Of submitting to the Su.
preme Court the determination Of cues.
tons Of political right and opinion. and
the deception Of conceAling aud covering
up in vague and impracticable sugees.
ton. their real sentiments. In either
view they stand ia direct antaeonism
with the Constitutional Democracy. An
honest combination and union between