Daily Democrat and news. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1859-1864, 1860-01-12
The Charleston Convention.

County Central Committee.
The Charleston Convention.
We do not share in the gloomy fore
bodings Of dissension and discord in the
Charleston Convention, which seem to
Cypress many right-mindcd but faint
hearted members Of the party. To us the
path which the assembled Democracy
ought to pursue appears SO plain and
straight that to mistake it were as i'm
possible as to deviate from it would be
reprehensblc.
The disposition to conciliate evinced
by the Democracy in Congress through
out the whole contest for Speaker, is
full of promise Of harmony in the
councils and vigor in the action CT the
party. With the exception Of lIaskin
and Clark, Reynolds and Hickman,
Adrain and Riggs, who have gone over
to the Republicans, and by their deser
ton relieved the party from the stigma
Of their fellowship, Democrats Of every
shade and variety Of opinion, have uni
ted in support of the caucus nominee
for Speaker. When men can unite on
the floor of Congress, what is to prevent
their union in the hall of the Conven.
tionl There is, in our judgment, no
substantial ground of difference between
the administration men and the follow
ers Of Mr.. Douglas. Thank God, the
Improbable controversy between "Le-
compton" and "anti- Lccompton is
over, and the Democracy have learned
from its issue a lesson not soon to be
forgotten. Nothing but radical, irrec-
onciable difference upon great, vital
principle Of Democratic faith can or will
divide the Charleston Convention; and
there is no such difference Of opinion in
the party. 1t has been said that the re-
al point in controversy was as to the
power of Territorial Legislature to
prohibit slavery, but that is not our un-
dcrstanding of the case. Mr.. Douglas,
in his Frceport speech, did not claim
that Territorial Legislature had any
such power. lie merely stated. that
slavery could not exist without laws for
the protection and security of the mas
ter's rights, and that if the Legislature Of
Territory should fail to provide means
for securing to the master the services of
his slave, slave property would be so in
secure that no one would think of car
rylng 1t into such Territory; that al
though /, Is unquestionably true that ev-
cry citizen of the United States has a
right to carry with him into territory
purchased by the common blood aud
treasure Of the whole country, whatso-
ever is recognized as property by the
Federal Constitution, the right would be
valueess and in tact never claimed in
any Territory whose Legislature did not
choose TO provide safeguards and guar
antics for its enjoyment. lie did not
claim that Territorial Legislature could
directly pass an act abolishing or inhib-
ting slavery. The tenor Of his remarks
leads US to the conclusion that he be-
heves that in the absence of legislative
action for the protection of slave prep
erty, the master would have no mean, of
enforcing his right to the services of his
slave-and just here is the difference
between him and the administr ation.-
The administration and Mr.. Douglas, OF
Mr.. Douglas as he spoke at Freeport,
agree upon all points downto this. The
administration believes that without leg.
'sIatlve action, the courts of the Terrific.
~ AFFORD ample and adequate protection
to the rights Of the master. and thu,
until the Territory energies from 4,
state Of pupilage and becomes a State
he may confidently appeal to the Terri
torial courts for the enforcement of thos,
rights, and for redress tor their violation
In abort, the sole point of difference be
tween the administration and Mr.. Doug
las It Freeport, was ~ to the jurisdic
ton Of the Territorial courts; and unles
Mr.. Douglas has since changed hi
views that i still the only question il