Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-09-21
From the New York Day Book.
The Treason of stephen Arnold
DOuglaS.


Douglas. He was slow to believe that he
could ever prove recreant to the Democratic
party, or false to Democratic principfes.-
But he has been reluctantly compelled to
acknowledge both. Aye, more; he has been
compelled to believe, from irrefragable evil
dence, that Stephen A. Douglas has not on
ly refused to support Democratic principles,
but that he has formed conspiracy aoatb
the Black Republicans, the open and avow-
ed enemies Of the Constit ution, in order, like
Benedict Arnold, to wickedly crafty a re-
vengeful ambition. He will prove this by
what follows, and will not deal in assertions.
but 60 directly to facts that are undeniable,
and stand uncontradicted.
Previous to commencing, the writer begs
to say, that he has no particular friendship
for Mr. Buchanan. He never received q
favor from his hands, that he is aware Of
This much the writer begs to say, lest his
opposition to Mr.. Douglas might be suppos-
ed, as much is charged, to originate from
the favorites of Mr.: Buchanan. In this case
at least, it surely does not. The writer is
not an office-holder, and never expects to be;
but simple citizen ana voter. and anxious
to see right principles successful, and the
Constitution and the Union perpetuated.
THE ORIGIN OF DEMOCRATIC TROUBLES.
In 1854 Mr.. Douglas brought in his bills
to organize the Territories of Kansas and
Nebraska. Stripped of all its verbiage,
there was among Democrats, North and
South, but one single point wherein they
differed; and that was this At aohat time
can the people OF a Territory decide the
question Of the existence Of negro "slavery"
among them ? All agreed they had the
power to do. so when they formed State
Constitution Some commended they could
do it before. None claimed that Congress
had the power to do it. Mr. Douglas left
this point undecided in his bill, ioQ the a.
greement that it was judicial questiohAand
should be left to the courts-oU Democrats
agreeing to be bound by the decision. It
was considered question that ought not to
divide the Democratic party. and the Su
preme Court was chosen as the umpire -
The Supreme Court has decided the ques-
ton. Lawyers may bubble and split hairs
about obiter dicta, but such language as the
following is too plain to admit Of doubt:
1.-THE right Of property in slave is dis
tinctly and expressedly affirmed in the Con-
stitution,' and ''no tribunal acting under
the authority of the United States, whether
it be legislative, executive, or judicial, has
right to draw distinction or to deny to it
the benefits Of the provisions and guarantees
which have been provided For the protection
of private property"
"And if Congress itself cannot do, this
if it is beyond the power conferred on the
Federal Governmental could not author
ize q Territorial Government to exercise
them. It could confer no po,oer on any TO-
cal Government established By its authority.
to uiolate the principles Of the Constitution. !"
"The only pooer conferred IS the poaoer,
coupled Nth the duty Of guarding and pro-
tecting the oaoner IN has right" Supreme
Court u s.
Mr.. Douglas refused to be bound by this
decision, for he has repudiated it in just so
many words. Here they are:
1.-The people of Territory can, by law
full means exclude slavery before it comes in
as State;' and "no matter what may be
the decision Of the Supreme Court on that
abstract question, still the right of the people
of the Territories to make slave Territory
OF free Territory, is perfect and complete. ;"
rs. A. Douglas.
At this point the writer of this parted re-
luctantly, but determinedy parted with Ste
phen A. Douglas. When be read that SEN
tenee in his Freeport speech, he said, the
die is cast, Douglas has really resolved not
only to abandon the Democratic party in
order to concillate the free sellers of Illinois,
but what is worse, be has trampled upon his
own agreements, time after time publicly an
nounced in the United States Senate-he
has falsifed his word-he is not to be trust
ed-in word he has lied before high Heav-
en- and the great American people: And
this day this foul stigma is branded upon the
forehead of Stephen Arnold Douglas. This
[ am aware, is harsh language, but it is the
truth, not I, that makes it harsh.
Here, then, is the point whore s. A.
Douglas broke off from the Democratic par
ty. His Lecompton course could have been
pardoned, but his solemn reputation of his
word forfeited his honor, and when that is
lost in public man, all is lost. And he
seems to have felt it and deliberately made
up his mind to- stand the consequences. for
he made all sorts of arrangements and Goa
litions, with the Black Republicans, both
before and after this dark and damning event
in his political life, as shall now proceed
to show.
DOUGLAS AND HORACE GREELY.
On the 18th of March, 1860, the Hon.
VIM. Kellogg, Of Illinois, made speech in
the House of Representatives, showing that
Horace Greeley, who had been attacking
him (Kellogg,) had in 1853, in the cam
paign in Illinois, used his influence for the
election of Douglas to the Senatorship, and
that other Republicans had done the same
thing. The speech speech was not aimed at Mr..
Douglas directly, but his course was neces-
sarily brought out. The charge made by
Mr., Kellogg was
''That Mr.. Greeley was, again and again,
with others, in consultation in the parlor of
Judge Douglas planning and seheming the
election of Judge Douglas to the Senate Of
the United States from the State of Hin ois. y
In support Of this, Mr.. Kellogg present
ed a letter addressed to him by Greeley
himself, in which the admission is made as
follows:
.sSenator Douglas and have been as
ausintances for ten years or more, during
which, tiaae each has given and taken hard