The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1860-08-21
Our Correspondent "sydney douglas and
Suuattsr Sovereignty.

week, but not the political principles he would in
culcatc by his Jealous advocacy of SrEpHyNA.
DOUGLAS for the Presidency, because forsooth he
is the great statesman of the -West-the ggantean
advocate of Squatter Sovereignty. We dissent
from this position for the reason that the " Demo-
cratic masses are Overwhelmingly in favor of
Breckenridge for President" not that ''we love
the Union less, hut that VIC love the South more .
That Douglas is man of towering intellect no
one will deny, but that he is equally corrupt is the
voice of the South. Hence the great danger of
eleyating him TO the Chief Magistracy of this
Union. Like Satan, lie has the faculty of making
&c the worse appear the better reason; where all is
false and hollow-to distract maturest counsel"
We are told that the 81 issue between Douglas
and Breckenridge is non-intervention and pro:ec-
lection Mr.. Douglas advocating the former
Mr.. Breckenridge the latter.
That Douglas advocated the repeal of the Mis-
souri, restriction in $780, and non-interyention
on the part of Congress in reference to the subject
of slosery in the Territories, is true. That he
aJfocated the same doctrine in the Kansas and
Nebraska Bill is equally true, but so far MS we
have examined the debates in Congress, when the
souattcr doctrine was being discussed, we have not
been able to see anything from him upon this sub
iect until 1854 when the Illinois Senator agreed
to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court
upon the question as to whether Congress had the
power to govern the Territories, whether that
power was in the Territorial Legislature, or wheth-
er Congress had the right to exclude slavery from
the Territories, or could delegate that power to
Territorial Legislature; or whether Territorial
Legislature, in the absence of any delegation OF
this power by Congress, has an inherent right
TO exclude slavery? After this latter ques-
ton was decided in the negative by the Su-
preme Court, the Little Giant refused to abide
by it, callingit mere o5ter dicta. 1t is true that
this question was not properly before the Court,
and decision of it was in no wise binding
upon the parties before the Court yet it was one
of the bases of the decision of the questions before
the Court, without passing upon which the ques-
ton could not have been decided. An oJitcr dicta
is nero passing saying, not at all pertinent to
the points in issue.
This is some Of the consistency of Mr.. Douglas.
But is the Squattcr Sovereignty doctrine non
Intervention doctrine! We say not, but the con-
trary.
Itis the business of Congress to make all need
full rules and,eeguatons for the Territories. Iii
duty that she cannot rid herself of, except by
making an agent to do it for her. Who is the
agent employed in the government of the Terrific
ries Z? We answer, the Territorial Legislature; !;
but in no case is she bound to make such an agent
What is the leading rule in the doctrine of agency?
We answer, that "what o person does by or
through another, he does himself" Now, if the
Territorial Legislature is the agent of Congress,
and ii establishes or prohibits slavery, you make
Congress, according to the legal maxim already
laid down, guilty of intervention. Could Congress
confer such power-power not possessed by her
self? No, it is contrary to the doctrine of nom
intervention. Whence, then, does Territory de-
rive such power. Surely not from Congress, al
though it is the source of oil its power. Such
power is not dcrived-it does not exist. Says
Chief Justice Taney: eff Congress itself cannot
establish or prohibit slavery-if it is beyond the
powers conferred on the Federal Governmental
will he admitted, presume, that it could not au
1t could confer power upon any local govern
ment established by its authority to violate the
powers Of the Constitution"
The question of the existence or non-cxistence
of slavery in the Territories is not rghtful sub
icct of legislation, either by Congress or Terri
torial Legislature. An exercise of such power is
inconsistent with the Constitution. The non-pro-
lection of property in the Territories is antamount
to intervention, because it must necessarily have
the effect to prevent its going there But the
converse is not true Its protection does not COM
pei any one to own slaves who is opposed to it,;
while the non-protection of it forbls persons
ing such property when they desire to do So.
Whenever right is conferred, the privilege of en-
joying that right is also conferred; without it the
right would be valuclcss. The exercise of this
protective power by Territorial Legislature
would not be Objectionable, but if it fails to exer-
else it, Congress- in justice to the citizens of the
United States, is bound to do so.
Those who deny the right of Congress to protect
slavery in the Territories must do so upon the
ground that property cannot consist in slaves
that the Constitution of the United States does not
recognize it. We presume no intelligent Southern
gentleman would stultify himself by advocating
such doctrine. Such is in effect the doctrine of
STEPHEN ARNOLD DOUGLAS, the man whom 60 sgd
ney" would have all patriots support for the Pres
idency. That the South has plighted her faith in
behalf of his doctrine, deny; but assert, with
out fear of contradiction that she has repudiated
DOUGLAS and Squatter Sovereignty. Although
some of our Southern politicians advocated this
doctrine while others connived at it, yet most of
them have rcpentcd, and are now doing battle for
the Constitution and the South by urging the
claims of BREcKIyRIDGE and LANE We take the
ground that those politicians who hold to the