Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1860-10-29
For the Worcester Daily Spy.
Mr., ThaVer's Policy.

The theory of Eli Thayer for the prohibi.
ton Of slavery in the territories is useless "
and impracticabe.
Republicans say prohibit by act of Con
gress.
Douglas says it may be prohibited by un-
friendly legislation, OF the territorial govern
ment organized by Congress.
Thayer says leave it to the settlers, without
any organic act establishing a territorial gov
ernment
Now Thayer says, congressional prohibition
is useless " because the supreme court would
declare it unconstitutional, on the principle
by which they construe the Constitution, to-
wit: that the STAKEHOLDER has the right to hold
his slave in the territory by virtue of the Con-
stitution, recognizing his right OF property in
his slave, and guaranteeing the STAKEHOLDER
protection in that right. Would not the SOW
ereign will of the squatters or settlers embo.
died in legislation by them, infringe upon this
right of the STAKEHOLDER to hold his slave in the
territory, as recognized by the supreme court,
and be therefore adjudged equally unconstitu
tional as the act of Congress and if the
supreme court as now constituted pronounce
prohibition by Congress unconstitutional,
Thayer says such legislation is useless" If
they adjudge the squatterlaw unconstitutional
| is it not equally "useleSs @ Although neither
Mr.. Thayer nor the republicans propose to
ADOPT the opinion OF the majority of the pre-
sent supreme court upon the property-rghts
| Of the stakeholder; yet if he would test the
utility OF the republican theory Of congress.
| sional Intervention, by that judicial standard,
is it honest in him TO apply the same test to
| his squatter laws But MIR Thayer saws
agree with the republicans that the Constu-
| ton does not recognize the right of the slave
holder o hold his slave in the territory out
side of a slave state, and says that as the
constitution prohibits, congressional leo sla-
ton is "needtesS.' Well, is not squatter le
| gislation just as "needess % If the Consti.
tuition as he says sufficiently prohibits the in.
PRODUCTION of slavery into the territories then
no legislation by Congress, territorial legisa.
lature under the organic act Of Congresst or
| squatter laws can be otherwise than useless"
or " needless" Mr. Thayer is driven by his
| own logic to his second position, the constitution
is enough, interpose no legal barrier-trust to
circumstances Tor the establishment OF free
dom. Can he honestly propose to leave it to
| the ballot box, the votes OF the settlers? That
| WOulu De ny his logic useless or needless.
| With the supreme court as it is, the suuatter's
law violating the shareholders right of proper
! ty would be unconstitutional and "useless."
! Or, on the other hand, if, as he says, the con
stituton is enough to prohibit slavery, it would
| be needless" What, then, is his next posi-
ton He would not egiSlate upon the matter
| in congress or the territory. He would not
even repeal the unconstitutional, and there
fore, "uSeless," slave code of New Mexico.
| What would he do? To carry out his utta.
rian theory, he can offer nothing better, moth
ing less than free fight, not at the ballot box,
but with the bayonet Eli Thayer proposes
civil war in the territory. Was not that the
actual result i'll Kansas? Stephen S. Foster
now advocates the formation of political par.
| ty upon the same basis, and arriving at n re.
| suit equally logical and sensible, and that is
thatthe constitution being anti-savery, slave.
| ry is unconstitutional in both state and terri
tory, and the only practical mode is to free the
slaves everywhere by force. He says, defend
| freedom az home and in the states. Thayer
says, let the fight be away from our homes in
the territory. Both discard legislative oppos
| ton and propose civil war. They are equally
wild and impracticabe, and, of the two, Mr.
Foster shows the most pluck" for he offers
to fight at home in the states. Thayer would
send others abroad upon the territory.
NOW, the republican party profess to be q
conservative law and order party. They
think the constitution does not, correctly con.
strued, recognize as rightiul and legal the re.
ation of master and slave outside OF the slave
states but they do not believe that the const.
tuition would of its own force efieetuollv and
certainly exclude slavery from the territory
therefore they say, in the Chicago platform, it
is the duty of congress TO carry out the consti-
tutional prohibition Of slavery in the territory
by legislation. They say the constitution
without legislation has not proved sufficient to
exclude slavery from free territory. The con.
stituion has not prevented the admission of
ten slave states since its adoption. 1t has not
prevented the introduction of slavery into n
territory five times as large as the state of
New York. They, and Mr.. Thayer also,
know that the constitution of itself, has not
the aid of legislation prohibiting slavery. His.
tnricallY. In 1act the cnnsIilnfnn Inns nrnsnntnd