The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1860-08-08

called, declaring that Congress ought to intas-
veue for the protection of slave property in
the Territories, aso1en necessary" the express
abolition of slavery in Kansas by Territorial
act did not constitute a case of necessity for
such Intervention, what possible case ever
could arise? No Democrat viii deny the OBJ
/ legation of the Federal Governments to sup
press Instructions within Territory, and to
tsnforee, even as against Territorial enactments,
4 a fbal judgment of the Supreme Court of the
4 United States. Nor can it be denied that
i Congress may, IN certain extreme cases, be-
4 yond the power oGredress by judicial interpo-
sition, revoke or amend charter Of Territorial
i organization. For what useful p4rpose, then,
was the agitation of so dangeroq3 question
renewed by President BuchS1 his last
annual message, or infamed by the resolutions
4 of Senatorial caucus, and finally thrust upon !
the Democratic National convention at Charles
ton?
EXCUSES FOR ALTERING THE GIN
l. CINNATI PLATFORM.
It is said, in excuse, that the principles
Ienunciated by the Supreme court of the Uni
ted States in the case of Dred Scott, lead to
the conclusion that Territorial Legislature
l has no more authority over the subject of sla-
very than Congress, and that Congress, equal
4 ly with the Territorial Legislatures is under
obligation to protect as well the possession as
the title of slave property in the Territories.
We do not now intend to debate this assertion
one way or another. It is admitted, univers-
i ally, that no such question was presented by
the record of Dred Scott's case, nor argnedby
counsel at the bar; and whatever the copcln-
sion at which any Democrat might arrive, up.
!, on reading the opinions delivered by the sew
eral judges, that conclusion cannot be SO clear
of doubt as to warrant him in eepspring those
J who, with an equal desire to ascertain the
truth, have attained another conclusion, We
| must all agree that if the Supreme Court did
not intend to decide that question, Gas many
, belieye,) it would be an act of bad faith, in
violation of the very terms of the Kansas Ne
braska bill, to commit the Democratic party,
as a national orgapizotion, to either side;
whereas, if the court did so intend, nothing is
! more certain than that whenever the question
shall distinctly arise, and be fairly argued, the
/ court viii express its determination in lam
! guage so plain as to command universal acqui-
, escence. The judgment of the Supreme Court
in bred SCOTS ease, has been carried into full
: execution; and whatever Judgment it may
!, hereafter pronounce, in case depending on
the validity or invalidity of Territorial enact
ments, must be and will be executed with equal
: alacrity and confidence. But, evidently, until
: some Territorial Legislature shall, by its en-
actments, have impaired the right of property
in slaves, there can be no use in agitating such
,
torial caucus resolutions have declared by their
votes, the case of Kansas be not proper case
. for Congressional Intervention, it is difficult to
Z imagine any other in which necessity for
. such Intervention will arise. ;--
!. 1t is said, however, that the Democratic par
ty thus occupies an equivocal position, and that
. the Cincinnati platform is rendered suscepti-
e BILE of two interpretations. This pretext is
merely plausible The platform has no double
e meaning, and but one sensible Interpretation
a It declares against Congressional intervention
/ plainly, openly, and equvocaliy; but refers the
j. question what power-if any-a Territorial
i Legislature can exercise for the prohibition OF
y the maintenance of slavery, as Territorial
!. institution to the adjudication of the Supreme
It Court of the United States. Democrats may
e 4 differ ss to what the court should or will de-
e eide; but they have stipulated, whatever the
d decision may be, to carry that decision into ct
l. feet
r It has been argued, also, inasmuch as one
Is duty of government.is the proteetiop of prop
y erty, in return for the allegiance of its sub
of jects, that the Federal Government cannot alb
of dicate authority with respect to the Territories
r but should constantly exercise . power of i'm
Sc mediate legislation for the protection of prop
le perty as well as persons within them. Thi
ps proposition, also, is merely plausible. 1t ig
m nores the fact that Congress must have, ant
us has always exercised a choice of instrumental
y tiles. It ignores the fact also, that the dutie
tS of Government have been divided under GU
s. American system into those of Federal AM
ne those of State, Territorial, and even of county
n parish, and municipal character. All these
u taken together, constitute the Government Q
u, which, and Of which only, the proposition cai
1T truly be prdicated, and unless we adopt tn
p maxims of the old Federal party which GU
rt fathers repudiated in 1798, 1893, and lSOe
id we must deny that the Government of tn
u United States can afford any protection, excer
n in Federal capacity, to property OF any dc
en- scription; all other duties of protection havin
~ been wisely confded to State or Territorial
N and, in some cases, to merely munlcipal ar
d, thorities. It is true, undoubtedly, that a
ID forms of property recognized by the laws G
m the respective States composing our confedel
lis aion are entitled to equal regard by their CON
es, mon Federal agent; but to affirm that it shal
ad under the pretence of protecting right {
ne property, usurp any power not clearly aeleg'
x. ted by the States, in the terms Of their CON
OF pact with each other, is to affirm a.doctrin
OF question is not whether property in slaves, {
in the Territories, or elsewhere; the questio
las is 5y aolsieh of the several divisions of Gol
of ernment with US, and to ,ohat ertent by eacl
ust this protection shall be afforded. It is col
ng troversy, therefore, involving the whole groun
Tas of difference beween the Democratic party an
an the various parties by which, in the histor
lp- of our country, the Democratic party has bee
iii opposed The first inclination of every Den
ws ocrat should be to resist, far as he can Law
he fully, the exercise of any power by the Fede
lth al Gogernment, within the States, within tt
po- Territories or anywhere else, until clear an
he definite delegation of such power by the Sc,
ice eral States, can be proven from the languag
of or necessary import of the Constitution Of tt
nd United States i
le- we have thus endeayored to show you, fe
rg low citizens, that the conduct of the Dem
re- cratic party with reference to the subject |
M slavery in the Territories, has been distil
pat guished for moderation, for wise and who'll
he. some craftsmanship, for regard to the limite
NJ nature of the Federal Government, to the r
pe served rights of the States and the people,
nat tls aaaoo The zzelfare the continual nreserY