The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1860-08-01
RAVENNA, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1860.

10 less signal than that which attended our
opposition TO the Bank of the United States
md our devotion to the principles Of the In.
dependent Treasury sct. II, in the estima.
ion Of oil, except three supporters Of the
Senatorial caucus resolutions, 80 called, de- |
'laring that Congress ought to intervene for
be protection OF slave property in the Ter
tories "when necessary" the express abo-
ition OF slavery in KOnsas by Territorial act
lid not constitute q case of necessity for
uch Intervention, what possible case ever
,ould a,ise ! No democrat will deny the
obligation of the federal government to sup.
press Instructions within a Territory, and
10 enforce, even as against Territorial en-
sctments, a final judgment Of the Supreme
Court of the United States. Nor can it be
cases beyond the power ofredress by judicial
revoke or amend charter OF
Territorial organization. For what useful
purpose, then, was the agitation OF so dan
gerous a question renewed by President
Buchanan 10 his last annual message, or in
famed by the resolutions of Senatorial
caucus, and finally thrust upon the Demo
cratic National Convention at Charleston !
EXCUSES FOR ALTERING THE CINCINNATI
PLATFORM.
II is said, in excuse, that the principles
enunciated by the Supreme Court Of the
United States, in tho case Of Dred Scott.
lead to the conclusion that ferfl'oriai
Legislature has no more authority over the
subject of slavery than Congress. and that
Congress, equally with The Territorial Leg
islatures, il under obligation to protect as
we'll the possession as the title of slave
property in the Territories. We do not
now intend to debate this assertion one way
or another. 1t is admitted, universally, that
no such question was presented by the re-
cord Of Dred Scott's rase, nor argued by
counsel at The bar /; and whatever the con-
clusion at which any democrat might arrive,
upon reading the opinions delivered by the
several judges, that conclusion cannot be so
clear Of doubt as to warrant him in Censur-
ing those who, with an equal desire to ascer.
tain the truth, have attained another con.
clusion. We must all agree that if the Sup.
rene Court did moi intend to decide thatques-
ton Gas many beIieve) it would be an act OF
bnd tuith, in violation Of the very terms OF tie
Kansas Nebraska bill, to commit the demo-
cratic pnrty, as national organization, to Ell
ther side; whereas, il the court did so intend
nothing is more certain than that whenever
the question shall distinctly arise, and be
fairly argued the court will! express its de-
termination in language SO plain as to com.
mand universal acquiescence. The judg-
meht Of the Supreme Court in Dred Scots
case has been carried into full execution;
and whatever judgment it may hereafter pro
nouDce, in csse depending on the validity
or invalidi,y Of Territorial enactm ents, mus
be and will be executed with equal alacrity
and confidence. But, evidently, until some
Territorial Legislature shall, by it's enact
ments, have impaired the night OF property
in slaves, there can be no use in agtltine
such questions; and il, as the authors OF the
Senatorial caucus resolutions have declared
by their votes, the case OF Kansas be not /
proper case for Congressional Intervention
it is difficult to imagine any other in which
a necessity for such Intervention will arise
1t is said, however, that the democratic
party thus occupies an equivocal position
and that the Cincinnati platform is rendered
susceptible OF two interpretations. Thi
pretext is merely plausible. The platform
has no double meaning. and but one sensi-
BILE Interpretation. 1t declares agoins
Congressional Intervention plainly. openl.
and une quivocOlIy; but refers the question
what power-if any-a Territorial Legisia-
ture can exercise Ior the prohibition or tn
m maintenance of slavery, as q Territorial in
ssiluton, TO the adjudication Of the Suprem
Court OF the United States. Democrats ma
differ as to what the court should or will de-
eide but they have stipulated, whatever 'h
decision may be, TO curry that decision int
effect.
II hns been argued, also, inasmuch as on
duty OF government is the protection OF prop
er,y 10 return Tor the allegiance OF its sub
iects, that the federal government cannc
nbdicste authority with respect to tn
Territories, but should constantly exer
else a power OF immediate legislalio
for the protection Of property as wei
as persons within them. This propos
tion, also, is merely plausible. 1t ig
nores the fact thut Congress must have
and has always, exercised a choice OF in
strumentslties. 1t ignores the fact, also
that the duties Of government have been di
vded under our American system into thos
Of federal aud those of State, Territoria
and even OF county, parish and muoiciP'
character. All these taken together col
stitute the government of which, and
which only, the proposition can truly b
predcated, and unless we adopt the MAJ
inns of the old federal party which our fatf
ers repudiated in 1898, 1899 and 1900, "
must deny that the government OF the Uni
ted States can afford any protection, exec
in federal capacity, to property OF any de
crip,ion; all other duties OF protection ha'
ing been wisely con6ded to State or Teri
torial, and, in some cases, to merely mum
!, cipal authorities. 1t is true, undoubted|
that all forms of property recognized by Il
, laws of the respective States composing Of
|. confederation, are entitled to equal rega
!, by their common federal agent; but to attir
that it shall, under the pretence OF protect
ing a right of property, usurP any pow'
not clearly delegated by the States, in Il
terms OF their compact with each other IS
; affirm a doctrine iraught with the most fat
. consequences. The question is not whet
q er property in slaves, or any other form
property, shall be protected IN the states
q in the Territories, or elsewhere; the que
ton is by which of the several divisions
government with Us, and to what extent
g each, this protection shall be afforded.
4 is a controversy, therefore, involving, Il
d whole ground Of difference between q
: dem ocrstic party and the various parties
:, which, in the history of our country, t
d democratic party has been opposed. u
first inclination Of every democrat should
to resist, as fer as he can lawfully, the e'
d ercise Of any power by the federal cover
n ment, within the, States, within the Terril
i ries, or anywhere else, until a clear and d
\ finite delegation Of such power hy the se
4 erai States can be proven from the langua