Weekly Trinity journal., 1860-04-14

snpposition that Mr.. Green, contrary to bis
apparent fairness, bad a motive in Withholding
that information. A member of the Senate
would not be likely TO be ignorant of an act Of
Congress, and the discussions incident to its
passage The rule Of justice may well apply,
that suppression of the truth is equivalent 10
an assertion Of falsehood. Mr.. Green's assertion
is that Mr. Douglas first introduced ii prominen t.
" before the country in his FreepOrt speech.
Now reference to the debates in Congress show
that Mr. Douglas himself, long prior to that time,
In the Senate made speech, of which the sub
joined extract is part Alarch Sd, 1854, in the
Senate. y" reported from the Committee on
Territories two bills, including the following
measures The admission Of California, a terri
torial government for Utah and New Mexico, and
the adjustment of the Texas boundaries. These
two bills proposed to leave the people of Utah
and New Mexico free TO decide the slavery ques-
tion; free to decide the slavery question for them
selves in the precise language of the Nebraska
bill, now under discussion. A few weeks after
wards the Committee of thirteen took those bills
and put wafer between them and reported back
TO the Senate as one bill, with some slight amend
ments. One of those amendments was, that the
Territorial Legislatures should not legisate upon
the subject Of African slavery. ] objected to
that provision on the ground that il subverted
the great principle of selEgOvernment, upon
which the bill had been originally framed by the
Territorial Committee. On the first trial the
Senate refused to strike it out, but subsequently
did so, after full debate in order TO establish that
principle the rule Of action in territorial
/ organization" Thus it will be seen that the
right Of territory to legislate on slavery was
announced long before the FrcepOrt speech. and
long prior to the Nebraska bill, and had been
discussed in the Senate and recognized the
territorial policy of the government, Mr. Green :
extraordinary assertion to the contrary notwith-
| standing
Lr f,1l 10 x,ith fo,
Pnce to the decision of the Supreme Court in the
Dred Scott case, protesting the highest veneration
for its authority. There seems to be sudden
growing affection newly conceived by the Demo-
cratic party for its authority, and a sublime
acquiescence in its decision. The effect of the
decision was, " that negro has no rights which
| a white man is bound to respect" and if they say
so why Of course it must be so. But the idea of
complete, unchanging acquescence in its decs-
ions is something new for the party-entirely so.
Mr.. Jefferson denounced it; General jackson
disregarded it.; Democrats in Congress repeatedly
assailed it, and Democratic National Conven.
tion passed resolutions opposing its decision,
when it pronounced &. S. Bank constitutional.
The State courts have decided in opposition to
supporting its decisions repeatedly and the
Democratic party have been in direct hostility to
its decisions whenever policy dictated-policy
dictates just now passive obedience. Why? Be
cause Niger has no rights which white man
is bound to respect. But it has been reserved
for the distinguished gentleman from Missouri to
| discover by some unknown means peculiarly
originator he cautions the gentlemen Of the
/ South not to be startled at its noVelty--a doc
/ trine as wonderful as any ever conceived in the
" thick coming iances" of the most dreamy ab-
stractionst a doctrine that unsettles all pre-
conceived opinions, sets at naught the philosoph-
| ical deductions Of early statesmen, strikes down
as by dictatory hand the fair fabric Of freedom,
ard declares with unblushing forehead" slavery
/ is national and freedom local"
/ The process by which this is reached is based
! upon the wise drawn rendering Of words in that
clause of the Constitution which says "no per-
sou held to service or labor III one State, under
the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in
consequence of any law therein, be discharged
from such service labor, but shall be delivered
up on claim Of the party to whom such service
or labor shall be due, and depends entirely in
the statesman-like understanding Of Mr. Green
upon the words " thereof" and " therein" The
prohibition is local to the States therein as hold
ing Of slaves is to the States thereof, aud accOr-
ding to the genteman's construction, il implies
that States may pass laws prohibiting slavery,
/ but that no such prohibition 10y implication ap-
plies to Territories.
Were we disposed to technical quibbles it might
be asked where in this clause or any other is
found the word slave "No person held to SER
vice or labor" is the phraseology. Is Il negro a
"a negro as property (chattels) Does not the
word person mean something else? Unless il
does mean slave, no logical deduction warrants
the conclusion that slavery is either national or
local. If it was intended to make slavery nation
al and freedom local, would weghty matter
have been left TO doubtful Interpretation and il
it had been contemplated by the all. wise states
men Of those days to merely have given an i'm
piled assent to sovereign States to prohibit il, ard
directly intended to create and build up a great
national right, would they, as statesmen, have
lett 80 important matter dependent upon such
equivocal language? Common sense dictates
the response if the article intended to mean
slaves, the language would have been well deln-
ed, and if. in their wisdom, they had intended TO
make slavery national and freedom local, - a
subject OF such magnitude would not have rested
upon mere implication, but been so carefully and
definitely expressed as to have lett no doubt in
the minds Of the millions for whom it was inten-
ded,-so plain that he who runs may read
States may 10y implication, prohibit, but no such
implication applies to any Territory, says Mr..
Green, for the Constitution does not say So Ii
does not say much about Territories in any way,
and not word about acquiring any. This pnli-
cy Of acquisition OF territory is not mentioned in
the Constitution. The only article which gives
Congress the right to " make all needfu rules
and regulations" for Territories, has direct ref.
erence to such as were embraced in the terrtori-
al limits Of the country as then existing.
The right, as now exercised, of acquiring ter
ritOry, rests upon somewhat indefinite tenure
Is there no doubt ubout the constitutional RIGHT
to enlarge the national domain by acquisition
How was it considered in regard to the Louisi-
ana purchase What was the opinion of Mr. JEFF
ferson and others? Decidedly against it, and yet
all subsequent acquisitions rest upon that as a
preceoent. Every jurist expressing an opinion,
says it was unconstitutional, in the first place,
but that established precedent justfying the
subsequent 1t was a gross stretch of power in
the mst place, assuming that which the Consti-
tuition had not provided for, and laid down the
foundation for other acts, which gentlemen like
Mr.. Green seem determined in ellecting.
Had the trainers Of the Constitution intended
so enlarged an acquisition, or any at all, as has
taken place, does any reasonable man suppose
that in their wisdom they would have said we
have framed IA Constitution Republican in form
we have declared "al men free and eoual"-
come now let Us fix to this our written law for
us aud our children for all time, and establish in