Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-09-15

| sn"ii sette III the Territory with his slave property-or that by unfriendly Legislation which means the imposition of onerous taxat;on or may mean the establishment of undergropnd rairoads on which his slave property can be spirit. ed away to free State or to Canda. forever ex. clude slavery from the Territories.
 MT. DOUGLAS, is the embodient of this doctrine ana the sandard bearer of the party. The only diHerence between the doctrine of Mr. DOUGLAS and Mr. LINCOLN is this: helatter says that the Soutl shall be excluded by congressional leoislation. from the Territories, and that more slave States shal be admitted into the Union, while the former holds that the people ofa Territory shall say on its organi zation whether they will have slaves or not. and that their act shall be binding o4 the people of the Territory. The practical effect of which would he to exclude the South therefrom-to populate the country with abolitOnists and bring the States in future, into the Union covered all over with the slime ot aboEtionism, so that this doctrine oi "squatter sovereignty is, in fact in the lanpuage of Gouernor Wise of Va, ca short cut to abolition ism.''
 But it is said that
 "NoN-INTERvENTIoN''
 is the doctrine of MT. DOUGLAS, and that the whole democratic party of the nation, are fully committed to that principle by the legislation of 1850 and 1854, as well as by the national democratic plat forms of 1e4e, 1852 and 1856, and that the party has abandoned the non-intervention doctrine. and
 
 fast. And he explains on-intervention, to mean that the squatters of Teriitory-exi xisting by the sulirance ot Congress, are sovereign-that they possess exclusive control'oyer the question ofsaye- ry ill the Territory, and that Congress has no right to intervene to protect the citizen against direct unfriendly legislation. Whereby they must sub- nit to heavy losses or be driven out of the coun- try, doctrine of
 "Such frightful mien, Ihott tO ha hataI aI d, Neither the compromise of 1s50-the Kansas Nebraska act, nor the platform of the democratic party contains any such political heresy It is a construction put upon them by MT. DOUGLAS and ms friends at the North-the whole South and q large portion of the northern democracy always contended that Congress had no power to introduce or prohibit slavery in the Territories and that the territorial legislature, which was the mere creature of congress cannot possess greater power than the creator (Congress) and that should it arrogate to itself such power, Congress had not only the right, but was bound to intervene to protect the citizen against such a mal- exercise of power. Upon this subject the democracy were divided-some agree ing with MT. DOUGLAS, others holding with the South. They agreed for the sake of ouietng agi- tation to compromise for time these differences, by declaring that Congress should not intervene ''fo esfabsish starery n, or to erclude t from the Ter r1tortes," leaving the question in dispute to be ad indicated by the courts. Speaking of that agree ment in his great speech on the Davis resolutions, Mr. DOUGLAS sad
 |" believed the power existed; others believed otherwise; we agreed to differ; we agreed to refer 1t to the judiciary; we agreed to abide bythcir de- cision''
 To this all agreed-each stood pledged to abide by that decision. The Kansas and Nebra ska bill was passed under and through this spirit of com promise. The Cincinnati platform was adopted and the President elected with this understanding, but before the Dred Scott opinion was given Kansas knocked at the door of Congress for admission into the Union as slave State. The people of the Territory had boiled their votes-organized their election districts-hed their election-appont- cd thelr deieSates-met in solemn convention and framed their constitution in all things in strict accordance with the enabling act penned by Mr. DOUGLAS own hand; yet, notwithstanding he was the first to ask territorial government the first to encourgage her to ask to be admitted iiito tllc Cmon as a sovereign State, he was the
 first to raise his arm to eject her, the first to raise his voice to condemn her unworthy of a place Ill the contederacy because her constitution author ized slavery in Kansas The great doctrine of non intervention about which he and his friends talk so much, rds then ruth him dt dn end. He had affirm ed the right of the people of the Territory to make the State free under the Kansas bill, and it became necessary to do something to stop the camors ofhs abolition friends in the North, and especially of his own State, Illinois; consequently he separated him. self from the democratic party, who had delighted to honor him, not only member but as a leader, and without stopping to ask whether the constitu- tion was republican or not, the only touchstone known to the constitution, which he was sworn to support, he asked and demanded that Congress should interene to exclude Kansas from the Union.
 "The bill to admit Kansas State under the Lecompton constitution, without condition or qua- fcaton, passed the Senate by large majority, and supported by democrats and none others, lex cept Mir. Remedy, of Md, an American.) II mas opposed by all the black republcans al of the Anne- ricans, except Mir. Remedy and by Mr. DOUGLAS and three other democrats. It went to the House, and was there defeated. It was there supported by all the southern democrats and 3l out of 5l northern ldemocrats-by all the South Anne. ricans. except six, to-wit: Messrs Daois, Ricard and Harrs, of Md, Marshall and Uuderrood of Ky, and Gilnr, of N. c. If any four of these had voted for the bill it would have passed by aid of the speakers vote, but these South Americans united with the abotionists and defeated the bill' [Toombs at Augusta, Ga. 9th Sept, lS59
 The Supreme Court of the United States in de- ciding tle Dred Scott covered the whole ground lof controversy, and eectualy settled the question ISf congressional power over the territories, and 1 bwer of the Territorial Legislature over the sub jet of slavery. sustaining to the letter the fair, plNper, natural and constitutional construction put ClIcln1laIl Dy tne democracy ana 1 by te entire South.
 | Tle Supreme Court said that territorv-" Is | acquied to become State, and not to be held as colonyand governed by Congress with absolute authoriy." Again:
 "Th, ,principle upon which our government rests, and upoi which alone they continue to exist is the union 9 States''' Again:
 "A power, therefore, in the general government to obtain and hold colonies and dependent territo- l lpl icI thnv ,iyht lot fbn,,f strcton wo,ld be inconsistent with its own exis- tence in it's resent form: Whatever it acquires, it acquires tor Ae beneft cf the people of the SEVERAL STATES who cAated it. It is their trustee, acting for them, and dlarged with the duty of promoting the interest of he whole Union in the exercise of the. powers specticaHy grantsd.''
 | Agaln: lhepower to acquire, necessarily car ries with it the poer to preserve and apply to the purpose for whichlt acquired The form of government to be Established, necessarily, is vested
 in the discretion of Congress. Acting within the scope of it's consttuonal authority and not in-
 ringing upon the yi9k of persons or RIGHTS OF PRO- PERTy of the citizen 'nA might 90 there to reside, or tor any other lawful pupose."
 ! Again: " It seems, hwevcr, to be supposed that there IS difference betteen property in slaves and other property and that ifferent rules may be ap- piled to it in expounding the constitution of the 1 United States. But in considering the question before us, it muSb be borne in mind that there is no law of nations standing between the people of the United States and their government and interfering with their rentons to each other, The people of the United Staes havc delegated to | it certain enumerated powers land forbidden it to exercise others. IM Constitution yecog- nises e riq of e property o nas,er ia slare and makes distinction betueen thdtycscripton of pro pety and any other property omneA by citizen, and no tribunal acting under the authoy of the United States, whetherit it be legslatre erettre or judicial has right to dra,c distinction or nNY 10 1t the be- neft of the prorision and guarantees Aich hape been prouided for the protecton c prioate pperty against the encroaehments of the gopernment."N | And again: " If Congress itself caIAot do this; if it is beyond the power confer ed on ve Federal Government, it could not authorize aterritorial government to exercise them. It could confer no power on any local government establishAl by it's authority to violate the provisions of the oDnstitu | tiOn.''
 | It will be seen that the Supreme Court If the | United States have clearly enuncated 1 l. Congress has right to acquire territoryand the same when acquired belongs to the PEoFIi OF THE STATES.
 1 II. Negroes property, and are to be regardxl aS other property. 1 III. Any citizen of the United States has rieh to go to territory and take there whatever pro 1 perty he may possess.
 ". Neither Congress nor territorial legislatur, can infringe upon the rights of property of an, 1 kind in territory.
 | V. That while the territorial government con