The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1860-08-01
WASHINGTON, 22d June. 1860.
"Egeads L Win Tails You lose"

Nobody denies that when the Kansas n ebras
ka bill was passed the South agreed to mon in
terfefnce by Congress with slavery in State, o.
j Territory, or District of Columbia" but it mus
be also admitted that it was at the same time
greed and understood by Northern and South
ern democrats that the po nts in despute as tc
the right under the Constitution of Southern
men to go into tie Territories with their slaves
and hold them there as property, just as North
ern men have right to so there with any Other
species ofproperty and hold it there peaceablj
and securely, free from any interference or re
striction which could impair or destroy tina
right on the part Of Congress or territoria
legislature, should be referred to the decision
of the Supreme Court of the United States
whose Judgment should be flnal and binding on
all. 1t was in persuance of this agreement tina
express provision was made by the Kansas bill
to refer this point to supreme arbiter on al
questions relating to the construction Of the
Constitution. 1t would now seem, however
that Mr. DouGLAs and his friends agreed tc
this with the intention, ifthe Court decided a.
gait1st the South; and ruled that slaves could
not be held in any Terrtorr unless by virtue o
municipal law established slavery there; that
the South should be bound non-lntervenlor
and submit; but if as is the case, the Conrt de-
cided in favor of the South and declared that
under the Constitution, Southern men coulC
hold their slaves in the Territories as their pro
perty and be entitled to protection both fol
themselves and their property that then, in case
the South required the enforcement OF this de-
cision, her request should be denied on the
ground that she had agreed to nott-interte1.
ton.
To use very homely but expressive phrase
this seems very like "heads win, tails goa
lose" If the decision of the Court is in favor
Of the South, non intervention deprives her o.
the right to ask for the benefits ofthe decision;
and if the Court decides against her, non inter
vention compels her to submit with good
grace. Whatever was the reward is gwen
practically, non-intervention is to work to the
prejudice ofSouthern interests.
1t may amuse the South to know and believe
that the Supreme Court has established her con-
stitutional right to equality in the Territories
but she must never assert that right or claim
that the decree ofthe Court shall be executed
She is told that it gives an abstract right
that non intervention deprives her ofall redress
and that no power can prevent the first hun.
dred abolition squatters who rush into the pub
lie domain from permantly excluding therefrom
every citizen Of every Southern State. These
abolition squatters from the moment that the
organic law of the Territory is passed, become
at once the "pcople of the Territory" they c.
lect legislatures and pass any law they please.
| They are armed with powers far greater
than those possessed by the authority than call.
ed them into exstance. They may hullify the
Constitution, trample on the laws of the land
and defy the Supreme Court, directly and boldly
by positive action, or indirectly and sneakngly
by non action and unfrendly legislation, ahj
yet, under the doctrine of non Intervention as
Mr.. DOUGLAS construes it, there is no power tc
prevent or punish the rebellion, s... ... .
| And this IS not all. If the south objects tc
this "heads-I win nand- tails. you-lose arrange
ment, If she refuses, to accept platform o
principles in which it is asserted, and all her
Claims ignored, ,--she is accused Of having viola
ted her agreement, and OF "makng fresh
claims on the North" The accusation is
false, and every allegation by which it was at
tempted to be sustained is utterly destitute O.
justice and truth. The South agreed 10 non in
tervention by Congress with. slavery in the
Territories and she stands firmly this day by
her agreement. The South also agreed in
common with the Northern Democracy to sub
NIT the question of her constitute status In
the common Territories, to the Supreme Court
ofthe United States: and since that Court has
decided clearly and unequivocally in her favor
and her rights under it duly protected. Size
denies Chat non-inervention can be construed
to bar her rights or sanction violation Of the
Constitution Ina word, she asks for and ir-
sists on even handed justice; protests against
an attempt to defraud her by an ingenious mis-
construction Of her agreements and demands
pothiug more and will take nothing less than
what the highest tribunal in tho county has
solemnly pronounced 10 be hers Of right under
the federal compact.
015~What did q blind wood sawyer take tc
restore his sight? He took his horse and saw,
- ~--s--e -
| kTLove in womaps lie is history; in 3