Des Arc citizen., 1860-07-18
Johnson Condemned by Douglas.

In his famous article, published in liar. per's Magazine, MT. Douglas made the following observation in the first column on the second page of that remarkable treatise on Popular Sovereignty:
 "It is difficult, to conceive how any per- son who believes that the Constitution con. fers the right of protection in the enjoy ment of slave property in the Territories, regardless of the wishes of the people and of the action of the Territorial Legisla- ,ure. can satisfy his conscience and his oath of fidelity to the Consultation i,, pithdraw- ing such Congressional legislation as mag be essential 10 the enjoyment of such right under ths Constitution. Under this view of the subject it is impossible to resist the conclusion Mat, if the Constitution does establish slavery in the Territories beyond the power of the people to control il by law. # iS fhe imperatiue duty of Congress to supply all the legislation necessary to its protection"
 MT. Douglas clearly inlimates in the foregoing tha, any man who believes tha, the Constitution confers the right to hold slaves in the Territories does violence to his conscience and breaks his oath of fidel. ity to the Constitution. if he withhods such Congressional legislation as may be ne- cessary to secure the perfect enjoymcn. of that right.
 It seems from the following extract from a letter written by Governor Johnson on May 2Sth, 1860, a year after having read MT. Douglas article, and when he had a full knowledge of the Douglas platform, that Gov. Us position on the question is precisely that to which MT. Douglas charge of fathlessness to the oath of fide- ity to the Constitution applies with full vigor and effect. The following is the ex- tract to which we refer:
 "I believe that it IS the right of the South to demand, and the duty of Con- gress to extend, protection to persons and property of every kind, (lncluding slave ry,) in the Territories during their terrl,o- rial state. This is no new opinion. Lad vocated the doctrine as far back as l848, in the Senate of the United States. If you have any curiosity to see the argu. ment, I refer you to my speech on the Or egon Bill, delivered Eth July of that year, and reported in the Congressional Globe. How unjust. therefore. are the insinuatlons with which you inlersperse and in,erlard your editorial comments, that all are in fa- vor of Squa,.er Sovereignty who happen not to agree with the seceders from the Charleston Convention! 1 repel tho in- situation so far as it may be intended to apply to me, come from what quarter it may, and plead my own record in yindlca. ton.
 But this is not the question now before the Democratic party of the South. The question is, not whether we have the right to demand, bu, whether. under the crcum- sta ances, we ought to demand Congression- al intervention for the protection of slavery in the Territories 2 think we ought not, and the object of my Macon letter was to vindicate that opinion"
 Here Gov. Johnson brides. himself on the fact that for years" as far back as lS4S "-he advocated the right of the South to demand. and the duty of Con- gress to extend protection to persons and property of every kind, (including slave ry) m the Territories. and yet. although MT. Douglas finds il difficult to conceive how he can satisfy his conscience and his oath of fidelity to the Constitution. Gov. Johnson thinks that he ought DO. to de- mand protection for the right of the Con- stitu,ionality of which he has no doubt. and which he advocated with so much zeal. We leave the two s,andard-bearers of