Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-09-27
EnT. Thaycr and His sauattsr sover-

has come out rs a candidate in opposition
TO the Republican nominee. Mr.. Thayer went
off on popular-sovereignty tangent in Con-
press. His party did not want any of that
article; 80 Mr.. Thsyer shows his regard for
popular sovereignty, by setting up his claim
10 the ofice as superior to the party to which
he owes IL. He may believe popular sover-
eighty good for doctrine but certainly he
thinks but little of it for practice. Even if
there was any principle in Mr.. Thayer's
popular sovereignty, it is a mere abstraction,
so far as any practicability goes. There is
no party in Congress in favor of the popular
sovereignty experiment for the Territories.
There are but two men in the Senate who
talk popular sovereignty, and they are both
anxious to have the Supreme Court take it
off their hands, and pretend only to hold it
in trust for that tribunal.
There is not corporaps guard of popular
sovereignty men in the House, and they also
are anxious TO shift it off their hands. So
far as any practicability goes, Mr. Thayer
might as well advocate the last war, or last
years birds nest, and assume that his party
had no right to nominate their own Repre-
sentative, because they were not sensible OF
the merits Of those subjects. Practically,
nobody ever believed in the device of popu-
lar sovereignty for disposing of the question
of slavery in the Territories. The right Of
property in men must be supposed to exist
under the common law, or men could not
hold it by legislation; and the idea of vot-
ing property out Of mems hands, and voting
slavery up or down, according as the for
tunes of parties varied, is too absurd for any
~ayfaring man, though fool to believe,
unless it is the Commercial whose ideas are
inscrutable, especially to itself
Such popular-sovereignty process would
ne nothing but civil war; every time it was
tried. Kansas is fair specimen of the
working of il; and, instead of that case be-
ing aggravated by peculiar circumstances,
it was probably the mildest form of the
operation of this remedy. Popular SOW
Teignty was contrived only as a bait on
which the trap of the Supreme Court was
to be sprung All the parties to it have con-
fessed this; and now, when the trick has
been exposed, and the confederates have
discarded it, Mr.. Thayer takes up the stale
fraud, and tries to put it upon his constitu-
ents; and because they will not stand this,
he shows his adeptness in popular-sover-
eighty tricks by boiling from his party, and
trying to defeat their candidate.
Mr. Thayer made his debut in Congress
in Quixotic, Misunderstanding, annexa-
tion speech, vaunting the ability of the Free
States to beat the South in emigrating, and
to take possession of the whole Continent.
This was thought eccentric, coming from a
member of party which has inherited too
much of the Whig fear of annexation. 1t
made Mr.. Thayer celebrated, and this was
too much for him. He thinks the place be.
longs to him, instead of his constituents.
We do not suppose that slavery will ever
gain one foot of territory by means of legisla-
tion; nor that legislation will ever save one
foot of territory from slavery; nor that slav-
cry will ever be abolished by law in State
until it shall have already been abolished by
the force of circumstances and of interest.
Political agitation never has affected the
destiny of slavery, and never will. Its fate
is beyond the control of government, and it
will take care of ITSELF We see this princi-
pie already recognized by the party which is
hostile to the extension of slavery, in their
bill, which passed the House last session, to
establish five new Territorial Governments,
without any clause prohibiting slavery.
But it does not follow from this that the
people of the Territories have the power to
vote sihvery up and down. A man can no
more vote himself the right to own another
man, than he can vote himself another |
mans farm. He can no more acquire by |
legislation the right to hold black man
than white. Legislation can neither Gre
ate nor destroy the right of property.
When rights of property exist recog-
nized by law, the law must respect
them, without regard to the manner in
which such property was created genera
tions ago. We do not allow that question
of title TO our lands can be raised because
they may have originally been acquired by
Tobbing the Indians. So, when the law has
recognized the right of property in man, law
must respect it, and can net take it away.
The only legislation which is possible
against slavery, without destroying rights |
which the law had already recognized, or
which hhd been established by custom, which
is the origin of law, is Congressional exclu-
sion from the Territories before It has ac-
quired any rights there. This destroys no
rights of property, and is the only legisla-
tion that has ever worked peaceably and
successfully. The South pretend to call this
unconstitutional. II was never so until the
new-fangled experiments on the Constitu-
tion, and if it is unconstitutional now the
Constitution has changed, and is unreliable.
The South also pretend that this DESTROYS
the equality of the States. Not any more
than when twenty or thirty thousand in
habitsnts take possession of Territory and
organize themselves into a State, and then
exclude slavery. Yet Mr.. Breckenridge ad-
mits that they can do this; and the plan of
encouraging the South 70 take their slaves
into a Territory under Constitutional or
Congressional protection, and then destroy
ing their slave property by the substitution
of State Constitution, is merely bringing
the underground road above ground, and
making il a Government institution.
We do not know that the Republicans
a.. .1..I. Il. A. m