Dallas herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1849-1873, 1860-05-30
ADDRESS

,o the Democratic State Convention Of Galveston
, April 2, lS60-haying withdrawn from tho De
m mOcrato National Convention Of Charleston. /
"a which we were accredited by your authority
~ deem it due TO ourselves and those we represent
/, 10 assign the reasons which have Influenced us II
I, taking this grave and responsible step,
!, II Is well known 10 the country at large, AM
"a the Democratic party Of this nation tina. uf lat
:, wide variance of opinion has existed between
=" two wings Of that party, as to the proper con-
= = struction of the Cincinnati platform, and th'
; . Dred Scott decision, relative to the pOrper o.
r Congress and the pOcer of the people Of the Ter
. ritores during thar territorial condition, over
the institutions of slavery in the territories oil
= the United States.
!. In order to obtain just exposition Of tho pres
= ent attitude Of those whose views upon these
! great constitutional questions have apparently
proven in the Charleston Convention to be to.
tally irreconcablo, we deem it proper and nee
essary briefly to refer to those instruments:
The Cincinnati platform declares the recogni-
tion of the right OF the people of all the Terri
tories 10 form a Constitution, with or without
domestic slavery, and be admitted into the I'm.
ion upon terms of perfect equality with the other
Sta too, "-d t'S admission of now States, with
without domestic slavery, us they (the new States)
may elect"
Subsequent to tho adoption of the Cincinnati
; platform in 1856, the Supreme Court of the
|
ion upon the great questions of the power of
Territorial Legislatures and Congress over the
institution of negro slavery in the Territories
1t was decided, that
"The right of property in sl,vc is distinctly
and expressly affirmed in the Constitution" and
that no tribunal acting under the authority Of
the United States. whether it be legislative, ex
ecutive or judicial, has right to draw distinc-
tion or deny to it the benefit 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 Government
| it could not authorize Territorial Govern
ment to exercise them 1t could confer no pow
er on any local Government. established by its
authority, to violate the provisions of the Con-
stitution" ''The only power conferred is the
po,cer coupled with the duty Of guarding and
protecting the owner in his rights"
At the time OF the acquisition of the immence
territory from Mexico, and at this day, the Free
soil party of the North, maintain that Congress
has the power to exclude slavery from the Ter
ritories, and whatever else the Federal Govern
ment has jurisdiction, by positive Congressional
! enactment. The affirmation Of this power. aJ0t
ish or prohibit slavery, was denied by the Demo-
cratic party and to meet this issue, and This alonc
the doctrine of &c NON INTERFERENCE :" by Con-
gress wiM Slavery in State and Territory, or an
The District of Columbia" was clearly and dis
tinctly announced in the Cincinnati platform.
1t will be seen in the Dred Scott case, that
the power claimed by the Republican party to
exist in Congress to interfere in the exclusion
abolition of slave property in the Territories, is
expressly denied, but power. and obligation to |
protect, is as expressly affirmed. and this claim
of the Southern people to projection by Congress
of their property in the Territories is no infringe
ment of the doctrine Of ''NoN INTERVENTION"
which, We repeat--as historical fact that can
not be questioned-was Originally announced as
n cardinal doctrine by both the Democratic and
Whig parties to. repel the assumption of the
Free soilers, that Congress could interfere to ex-
clude or abolish slavery in the Territories. The
failure to discriminate or recognize the simple
distinction between the p0,Ucr to protect lfe lih
erty and property, (Which is the first and high
est I" duty" of organized society and the ex-
ercise of that power to destroy, is the whole
ground of the lamentable misapprehensions and
differences prevailing with reference to this doc
trine of non Intervention by Congress with slave
ry in the Territories.
The points of difference between the two wings
of the Democratic party is, that the South
claims that during the Territorial condition that
negro slaves, (who under the Dred Scott decis-
ion, were recognized property, not by virtue
of local State law, but the Constitution itself,)
were, as property, entitled to " the benefit Of
the provisions and guarantees, which have been
PROVIDED ior the pr9tecuon OF private properly, !
anu tnnl 'he oniy power eonlerreu, e'1ner
upon Congress or lerfitoriai Legislature, over
TINS as wen us over every otner species OF prop
erty' " Is the power coupled with the auty OF
guarding and protecting the owner in his rights" !
rms power Oh congress TO protect Is aehiea oy
the Northern wing OF the party upon the ialia-
cious ground that 1t Is an infringement OF the
doctrine OF non ,nferrenton and the chief OF
this wing ahrmed IN his Alton speech that mo |
kind OF property could be protected In Terri Il
tory without a Territorial law" and If the t
people OF the Territories do not want slavery, c
they will withhold that protection, and the alb s
sehse Vi 'ooal les,sm'ioh Protc.tiS sinnely, eS-
ciGues ,r ~ as comp.efety Us Posnce Prouo''oh.
Inc o'her great point oi 1'nerence between the