Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1860-04-06

Roy In Late issue we used the following lang
usge:
"The JcftTsonidn thinks that, in claiming for
Congress the power TO protect slavery in the Terri
tories take the Republican side of the question"
In reply to this, the Jcfirsonan of Wednesday
says:
nThe Chronicle will pardon us for saying that we
don't "think' any such thing, nor have we said any
such thing.
This is as plain as n denial can we'll be made, and
The seeming confidence with which tits made would
induce the unsuspccling to believe that our neigh
Dor really never said any suck thing, but on refer
ing to his issue of the 2lst of March, the following
language may be found under the editorial head
"The power claimed for Congress by the Chron-
clc TO legislate in reference TO the question of Sa-
very in reference to the agitation of slavery in the
Territories, is the extreme Black Republican posi-
ton
There is evidently typographical error in the
above quotation hut the language is plain enough
to sustain beyond cavil the truth ofour declaration
and to prove q palpable contradiction between the
two issues Of the Jcfersopjop from which we quote,
land 50 far as this point is concerned we leave the
Jc6srsonian to settle with irsclf-wc have nothing
TO do with it. But to prove that he ''ncver said
any such thing ncighbor proceeds to argue that
Congress has the right to protect slavery in the Ter
titorics, bht the protection must he extended after
1.-THE uuconstutionN action ofthc territorial author
tics against the rights Of the Shareholder. Now
we never said whether the protection should be
given before or after such action and only main
tanned the broad ground that under the Consttu-
ton Congress has the power TO give H. This claim
that Congress has the power "to legsate in refer
cncc to the qucsiioSof slavery in the Territories
our ncighhor says sis the extreme Black Republic
con position and yet in the next breath he boldly
asserts that Congress la, that right hut can only
exercise it after the mischief is done This is dis
tiu,tou we can not see and is surely unauthorized
hy any fair construction of the Constitution or the
laws.
/ But mas not our ucjghhor involved himself in
another dilemma hy his positions on this question?
+ II the Kansas bill Is constitutional, Congress can
afford no protection 10 the STAKEHOLDER in the Terri
tories until that portion ofthc bill is repealed which
contcrs upon the people of the Territories the right
to establish or abolish slavery Under this bill, il
constitutional the Courts have no right to inteposc
in behalf of the Stakeholder and Congress can give
no relief except hy an unconstitutional er post JlctC
law, for when the people have acted, under the
authority conferred 10y the Kansas hill their action
IS FINAL But TO obyatc this difficulty, the later
,asu says the territorial authorities have no pow
or 10 interfere with the rights Of the Shareholder
Buchanan, Douglass and q host Of the democratic
Leaders assert the contrary, aud until oar ncighhoI
has srttlcd the question with them, we shall leave
the Kansas hin to speak for itself--0ssuming thai
the authority here denied is distinctly conferred by
that bill and that it has been exercised 10y the cg,s
h,urc Of Kansas,
Bat as our neighbor admits, in his last issue that
we have no, taken the Republican position, and that
We have for once lodged into sound position,
We are content to rcs the matter here, at least IN
IN hc ihds out ayrc Ia DOES stand on these several
qRe,iioussi lt~-u', he tseas TO BE- "t""''Hg
z oaAd hrS''