Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1860-08-17
For he Enquirer.
"CnfrIendly Legislation aud Snn-A ctiOn."

AesSrS Editors S:-W hist ] SUPPORT the cleC-
ton Of Mr.. Douglas, wish to say 10 all who
have done me the honor for five years to read
my discussion of the subject, that still cog
slider the doctrine Of norl-lntervcntlon the very
loosest and most palpablr abSurditv oi which
our federa,ive system is capable The philo.
sophie mind Of John Taylpr, Of Caroline, mev.
er conceived, nor did William i. tiles logca!
mind ever embrace the alsurdty Of po}"IHr
socereiynty during the territorial existence ii
is treated as it should bc rs synonymous with
non-ntcrvention 10y Congress TO protect during
the territorial existence, it is, in other words,
the claim Of the right OF self government by the
territorial people to regulate, rs they please
uninterfered with by Congress, their domestic
policy in respect to the existence or non-eSist,
ence Of slavery. Just remember the fact that
the territorial people have Governor who is
appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent Of the Senate, and that that
Governor when so appointed, is armed with
the veto power, and is subject TO bc removed
by the President, and the idea Of scl(govern.
ment in either substance or form vunishcs.
There being no right Of self government in
the territorial people, who do not elect their
own chief magistrate, the question arises,
where does the power to control the regulation
Of their domestic policy reside: The control.
| ling power is somewhere, and must he in
the Federal authority. Some say it is in
the Federal Legislatures others, that ii is
in the Federal Judiciary. This difference
of opinion was settled by the Kansas Act
in 1854, and it was agreed by the
unanimous South, in Congress, that the
controlling power should be referred to the
Federal Judiciary. 1t is now claimed that the
power shall be resumed by the Federal Lcgis-
lature, to be by it exercised during the terrific
rial existence, and no longer. This is the point
Of pcnding dssension,.. and though aprotection-
iSl by Congress, claiming that Congress can.
not, consistently with the Federal Constitution,
relinquish the duty to protect mt to protect
persons or property in Territory by direct
original legislation, but by supervising the ter
rtorial legislation still, ain opposed TO that
protection by Congress which extends only to
the time at which the territorial people form
their Constitution 10 become Il State. Up TO
that time, the protection the territorial slave
owner is entitled to can be best furnished as in
1854 it was agreed it should be-by the Fete-
raj Judiciary. If afforded only up TO that time
by Congress, it would operate injurioIsly to
whom it is intended to be benefit st that
time-the time Of making the State-therc
is no right Of appeal to the Court, and OF
course the Courts cannot now afford
any protection 1t is only because the
courts cannot at this time afford protection,
that the protection by Congress, at this time,
is desirable and requisite. The slave owner,
this time protected by Congress, would have
US complete constitutional protection as our
system is capable of alIordng But protection
by Congress, up to this time Of making the
State, and 10 bc withheld at this time, would
be an injury, not u beneft; and in this way
that the slave owner being in minority, and
having been invited there 10y the promise Of
protection, is left in the lurch at the first mo-
ment at which the court clnnot give any aid.
So it is that judicial pIotcrti0m, during the
territorial existence, whether Congress c&er-
ciscs or not its power to supervise the terrific.
rial legislation,) coupled with Congressional
protection, when the courts cannot act in the
admission Of the State, or after the State is adj
mitted, is the only Federal action that can fill
the whole circle Of Comstituiiomai protection.
Let it not be SAID that the supporters Of Mr..
Douglas are not advocates Of protection Of slave
property in the Territories. venture in re-.
lance on Mr.. Douglas record, that he, IN the
Presidential office, would not give his assent
to any act Of Congress admitting State with
and under Il Constitution having any provision
authorizing any legislation to tlivest title to
slave property in The new State And will
only ad'l rs have shown elsewhere, that the
power to get rid of slavery by uhiricnd'y lcgIs-
lation Dr by non.action, is an existing power
under the Kansas act as it is in State. ca.
cept 50 FAR in Il State uS any exercise Of the
power is restricted by the Constitution of such
State This power Of unfrirndy legislation or
non.aclion, in Territory, can only be restrain
ed by the suitable provisions for the purpose
incorporated in the act organizing the Terrific
ry. These organic acts are, Of course, framed
by Congress; and if Congress will not put the
provisions in such acts necessary tn restrain
any exercise of those indirect powers Of nom
action and unlriendly legislation, then, and in
all such eases of absence Of restraint, the mi
norty is at the mercy Of the maiority--eXccpt
only the minority so situated might seek relief
in revolution. This is, and must be so, for the
reason that if Congress will not put the sliia-
blc restraints in the organic act, nor will refuse
to admit State with Constitution not having
such restraints, it is not supposablc that Con-
gress would after the State Is in, granl the
prayer 10 Il petitioning minority {" enforce the
guarantee OF the republican form Of govern
mcnt, on the ground that they have been de.
pryed of republican freedom by anlrepnbli-
can laws not intcrtlictcd by the Constitution
which allows u contiscatcn or other lawless
divestng Of title to property So The last re-
sort would be to revolution, or in nonresistancc
T.. /. COLLIER.