The Tiffin weekly tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1859-1868, 1860-03-02
carl schurz on Dougins.

Ono Of the sblest aud most eio-
quent defenders os Republican doctrines,
in the West, is Carl Schurz Esq, orAIll-
waukeo, German naturnlzed citizen.
In a recent speech this gentleman re-
viewed the Popular Sovereignty doctrine
Of Douglas with msstcrly skin and effect.
We give one or two extracts, showing
the spirit IN which this work is executed
though falling, Of courlc, to DO justice T.
il a. a whole;
But what does AIr. Doucias sayI asis
very" 40 ho tells ms ia his Harper Maga.
zine article, "slavery being the creature
Of local legislation, aud not Of the Con-
stimtion OF the United States, il follows
that the Constitution does not establish
sls,ury IN the Territories, beyond -,
power Of The people 70 onnirei ? ,"
Whatl The Cnn,si. ~ euvl ''ut ~
tablisb si-,rry lh the Territories beyond
4. certain something. What does that
meani If slavery ia the creature OF To-
cal law, how can the Constitution by he
own torcc permit slavery 20 SO into .
Territory at alll
Here u dark mystery, a pitiall, and
we may well take care not 20 lall into
the trap ofnuch sophistry. Why does he
not speak Of tho admission OF slavery hy
positive enRotmcntsl Why not even Of
the power Of the people 10 exclude Il by
lawl We look In vain FOR light in Har-
per's Mugezine--(and Il is indeed true,
what Judge Black intmAtcs, that that ar
bcle Il enc of The obscurest documents
by which over politician attempted to
helog his followers;) bot we msy gather
Mt Doug a. real opinion from another
manifesto preceding this, In his New
Orleans speech delivered aft 7 his recent
succCss in Illinois, he defined his position
In substance az tolows "The Dcmocro-
cy of lllin1is hold that o stakeholder has
the same right 10 take his slave property
into a Territory as any other man has 10
take bis horse or his merchandise
What Slavery is the creature oflocal
law, and yet a STAKEHOLDER has the right
to take his slave property into ateritory
before any law has given him that right
A slave doea not become free voluntari-
y brought BY his owner upon the soil Of
territory, whore no positive local law
establishing slavery existsl How is this
possiblcl How can even the eustic mind
Of a Domoorutic candidate for the Presi-
dency unite these contradictory ussump-
tions. Applause. And yet there Il
stands, and nothing that Mr.. Douglas ov-
or said can be more unoquivocal in lie
meaning. And here again we may claim
the privilege OF drawing few logic de-
ductions from Mr., Douglas own premi-
ses. IT, os Mr.. Douglas distinctly aud
emphbticully tells ne, a stakeholder has a
right 10 take his slave as property into a
territory, and 10 hold him there as proper-
ty, before any legislation on that point is
had, from what source docs that right a.
risel Not from the law OF naturo-ior the
right 10 hold slave "is uuluundcd in the
law of nature, and In the unwritten and
common law" aud even Mr.. Dourlus,
little as he may care about nature and
her laws, will hardly dare 10 nsscrt that
the syetean nf slavo iaisr "a tho notnroi
and normal condition ofsocioly. tmnsl
then spring from positive law But from
what kind Of positive lawl Not from any
positive law Of local and municipal
character, for there is none such in tho
territory 80 far. Where is its source thenl
There Is but one kind o. ofpositiye law 10
which the territories are subject, before
any local legislation has been had, and
that Is the Constitution Of hs Uaiied
States. II, therefore, Mr.. Douglas as
serts, as he docs, that STAKEHOLDER hns a
right TO take his slave as property into a
territory, he must at the same time admit
that, In the absence of local legislation
positively establishing slavery, the Con.
stitution ofthe United Stutcs, the only
valid law existing thore, must be the
source Of that right. What else does Mr..
Buchanan assert, but that slavery exist.
in the territories by virtue Of the Federel
Constitution Where, Is then, fie poini
Of differences loitDcen Mr.. buchanan ana
Mr.. D0ugias2 Why al this pomp and
circumstance Of glorious worl Whence
these fierce battles between the Monte.
chi and Capuletti ofthe ID Dsmocratic cumpl
Are ye not brothersl
But Mr.. Douglas II statesman, (sc
they are all, all statesmen and protsndi
I that the Constitution docs not establish
slavery in the territories, "bcyond ht
poi0er Of hs people 10 control Il by laip. d
What docs that meant II means that this
people Of territory shall have tho pow.
er, not 10 exclude slavery by law, fol
Douglas never uses that expression, but
to cmbarrass the STAKEHOLDER IN the en-.
joyment Of his right, by "unfriendy leg.
islution." The right 70 hold slaves, says
he, in another place, "is aworthless right
unless protected by appropriate police
regulations. II the people Of territory
do NOT went slavery, they have but IA
withhold all protection and all friendly
legislation" Indeed, a most ingenious
expedienti
And Mr.. Douglts, nftcr having emphat-
ically admitted the right Of property IN a
slave, where that right can spring from
aSrSs a9 Slhs5 g ga Rpj p5 tb G542qftq9g lRGR
Where is his conscieneel Where Is his
oathl Where is his honorl applause }
But mr, Douglas says more: "The
Constitution being uiu erDremo law Of
the land, in the States us wei a. io the
Territories, then slavery exists IN Penn
sylvonin juut us well as in knnsas and In
South Caroline, and the irrepr sable cons
flot is thereln Aye, the irraproFsible
NeNAiNA 70 NhtA't A"N "Atl ~. ." ~" s'-1
two antagonistie systems Of labor bot be-
tween Mr. Douglass own iheoriesi not
only IN the States and Territories, but ir
Mr.. Douglass own head. daughter enf
checrs.) Whatever ambiguous express
ions Mr.. Douglas may invent, the dilem'
na atares him in the face (and here put
myself on his own ground) either slavery
/ is excluded from the Territories 30 long
as Il is not admitted by a special act q
Terrtorial legislatiops--or II a slayehold
or has the right 70 introduce his slave
property there before such legislation 4
hadhe can possess that light by virtue oln'