Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-09-15
Quibbling.

Our neighbor of the National says he has | implored us to "leave off our quibbling
 and come up to the issue like a man." ant
 his paper of Sept. 4th, he occupies neary
 two columns to disprove what we have 'ot
 said; in doing which he either quibbles hm-
 self, or is guilty of a carelessness in tbate
 which does not speak highly for lis as
 tuteness. Here is the way he open: "THE SUPREME CoURT DEcIsIoN.--'Bu the Dred Scott decisonis, that Congress has not tat power | e.. to prohibit slavery and Dougla stands to | that decision.-National Democrat
 Yes. and it is also announced in tn Dred Scott decision that TERRITORY has not "dt ponef. - | Does Douglas stand that.-Irue Datocrdt. By stepping into our office, Mir. True Democrat | can harrow the Dred Scott decisG, and he ought | to read it. and if he finds it ther decided that territory has not that power wewill acknowledge that heis greater man than Rererdy Johnson, who | is the best authority on constrlona law Tn Ame- l rica. .''-NatiOnat Dem.
 We did step into the office of our patron izing and accommodating neighbor, and have taken the following extract from the decision of the supreme court ln the bred Scott case, to which we invite the special attention of our learled friend, who wastes so much ink and tiae in proving that the writer of this is not as great a man as Re
 verdv Johnson orSenator Green. Read the extract, Mir. Natonal, 1t is fresh from the Dred Scott deciion which we borrowed "6y
 
 step ping into otr otTce:
 ".The right of property in slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the constitution and that no trbuJal acting under the authority oi the United States whether it be legislative, executive, ar iudiciaI hs right to draw distinction or to
 deSy to it tle benefit of the provisions and guaran tees. wbichhave been provided for the protection of nr; vate rropertv' And if Congress itself call not do thi-ieitis is beyond the power conferred on the feder-l Coyernment--it could not authorize territoria government to exercise them. It couid confer 10 power any local government, estaD ished " it's authority to violate the principles o inc co,stitution' 'The only power conferred is the rower coupled with the duty of guarding and nrot,cting the owner in his right "-Sumene Covt, U. &.
 Now our anti-quibbling friend, what did
 ve say that called forth your long article
 ,harged with thunder bolts, and scathing ] sarcasms. Refer to our language above and it will be seen that we stated, that the supreme court had i" announced''-(in in ad- dition to the decision 1t had made )-that the territories had not the power to exclude slavery There is it is true distinction be- tween the decision of supreme court, and it's opinion; the court decides points directly in issue upon the record, and in doing so as in the Dred Scott case, often gives an opinion on collateral points which are corol- laries of the proposition directly in issue. The supreme court did decide that Congress had no power " to draw distinction or to deny to it-slavery--the benefit of the pro- visions and guarantees which have been provided for the protection of private pro- perty.'' And they ossnounced, or gave it as their opinion, that a territory had no greater powers. Our friend of the National is con fident that the supreme court is wrong; but he must pardon us, if we, with all our par tiality for him, and with deep sense of the high honor he does us in inviting us to step into his office and read out of his book, conclude to accept the opinion of the su-