Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-11-02
[Frcm the Rockingham Register.l
To Derrick Tsennybacker and
Others

heterogeneous touching political questions which
nave peen made-unnecessariy, / think-the subject
of violent disputation in the fresidentia canvass
In Virginia. The high Consideration o regard in
which those interrogatilg are held as well as tie
mlshterpretation, unfayor able to the noble purpo
SEES OF the National Democracy in Virginia, who are
advocating the Claims of Judge Douglas which
might be placed upon my silence, alike forbid hest
taton on my part to respond fully, freely, and
The FIRST second and shird intetrdg atories as the
fourth aud fifth being nearly allied in character,
group them accordingly for examination
LIST. Do you believe that the people of Terrific
ry, acting through lccal Legislature, have the
constitutional powe: or right to exclude or impair
the Institution Of slavery by action or by di-
rest or unfriendiy legislation
End. Do you not think that wherever the slave
holder can constitntionally go with his slave prop
erty, that he is entitled to protection from some
power?
3rd. Ifso, from whence is that protection to BE
obtained if Congressional intervention for the pur-
pose is denied, and Territorial prohibition by non
action is to be acquiesced in 2
perceive, gentlemen, you have yery properly
Disseminated in your first interrogatory between
''po.cer," and "riqht," she former not only being
often exercised without the sanction Of the latter,
but the latter, often existing imperfect and futile
for want OF the power to give it vitality and effect
In response to one branch of the first interroga-
tory, am decidedly of the opinion that the people
of Territory, acting through their local legisla
ture have not the constitutional right to exclude
or impair the institution of slavery by non action,
or by direct or unfriendly legislation.
esteem every foot of eminent domain acquired
by either treaty, blood or purchase the common
property of all the sates of the American Union,
and whilst remaining in this condition Of common
property, belonging to the States as proprietors
equally possessed ct the privileges as Joint
thereof the citizens Of each and all the States
have the perfect right to remove t,cre with any
properly recognized IS such by the government at
home, and to enjoy the use and advantages of such
property, free from encroachment from any source
whatever. When this Territory ceases to BE COM
mon property by ceasirg to be Territory. and
becoming State, according to the provisions Of
the federal Constitution, with her own fundame n
tai laws defined in Constitution, of costrse the
proprietorship longer existing under this trans
formation, the privileges Of the citizens the Ststeg
by virtue of this proprietorshp no longer exist If
am correct in this view of the theory of the eder-
al government, and the relations Of the various
States one to another as partners and Terri torres
acquired as aforesaid as partnership find, the
people who inhab this Territory through their To-
cal legislature can have NJ right to rimpair' ante
cedent privileges possessed by the citizen of any
State. But independent ct this argument based
upon the equality of the States and tkeif federal
relations, cannot find any such s'right'' recog
nized by express grant or implcaticn in the FEEDER
al Constitution. In response to that branch Of the
que stion relative to the sConstitut NAL power els
distinct from Constitutional rig ht' to impair or
exclude, reply that dc nos Recognize the Consti
tutional power more than L do the right to ''impar
or exclude by direct unfriendiy eef latior. As
to the constitutionality of action, refer you
to the following from Hon. James L. Orr, of South
Carolina, one Of the NEST distinguished leaders of
the secession party:
"Now the Legislative authority of ferrftdife is
invested with discretion to vote for against the
laws. We think they ought to pass laws in every
Territory, when the Territory is open to settlement
and shareholders go there to protect slave property:
But If they decline to pass such law, what is Che
remedy2 None, sir, if the maj fty of the people
are opposed to the institution; and If they do not
desire it ingrafted upon their Territory, all they
have to do is simply TO decline TO pass such laws in
f},a q prohihit
And to the following from Senator Devils Of Mis-
riff the inhabitants Of any Territory shonld re-
fuse to enact such laws and police regulations as
would give security to their proper. ty to his, it
would be rendered more or less vsfueess, in pros
portion to the difficulties Of holding it without such
protection In the case of property in the labor OF
man. or what is usually ealled slave property, the
insecurity would b great Chat TIE owner could
not ordinarily retain It. Therefore though the
right would remain, the r2nsedy being withheld, ii
woul6 follow that the owner would be PRACTICAL,
tiebarred by the c1rcumst snces CT the case, from
taking slave property into Territory where the
sense of the inhabitants was OPPOSED to It's intro
duction. SO much for tho oft-repeated fallacy Of
forcing slavery upon any community"
also refer to sentiments germatn to tic forego
ing, Contained in speech delivered BY the Hon.
}. G. Breckenridge, at Frankfort, Kentucky, las
winter.
NV own opinion is that tie majority Of the peo
pile of Territory being in opposition to slavery
that the power public sentiment wonld triumph
over Che constitutional right to retain and enjoy
am aware that upon ths Question Of Territorial
Legislative power there exists diversity OF senti
inert bctW cen Jndge Douglas and portion of ths
Democracy Eho sre advocating his election bn1
the Democracy hare sotcmh AGREEMENT toee tller
in which this diversity Is referred to the arbitra
ment Of the United States Courts. This as don:
in the KANSAS Nebrasks ELL, and endorsed as tht
future policy of the Denocratio party in the Gin:
cinnatS Platform. Upon this Cincinnati Platform
the advocates of Judge Douglas now stand, and
rod tot t,a ,I.o
lection therein agreed Upon for the slayelol6ef il
the Territories, for tae legislation OF a Congress
hostile to the institution, ahd whose interference
with the subject has been TIE source of perp etua
fear and anxiety ever since tie eelsbr ated Missou-
ri compromise was enacted. Differing as to what
should be the decisici, Of the Supreme Court, the
Democracy agree to abise ty the decision, wien
made, and which Judge Dougla asserts that call
the power of the EoTcrnhent, the army the navy,
the nilita,-al that we have must be exerted 70
carry the decision into effect ii good faith If there
be resistance" cannot believe that there can be
any dissd 4antage 70 shs sopth ii this agreement
when almost every Southern Senator and Congress
man, Mr.. Calhoun included [see CLAYTON conpro-
misel has endorsed ana vindicated it. And lust
here refer you tothe resolutions introduced by
HON.. G. Breckenridge in tire Kentucky Eegisla-
ture in 1885, Just two years after his expression Of
party predictions as being totally opposed to
Congressional in terv entch clause asserting that
the Federal Government has no control over the in
stitution of slavery with the exception of spe-
cial powers relative to tie african Slave trade,
and to he recovery OF fy.gitiFe slaves.
Thus much for the first iterrogatory, in the re-
Spouse to which have strictly forborne to EXPRESS
any view concerning any and what provisions of tie
Constitution applicable to territorial acuulsi-
lions made since the formation of the Constitution
contenting myself With Ne assertion thai neither bv
express grant or bv implication do find any CON
stitutionaF right power conferred upon tie ped-
pie of Territory, hrotgh their s1icgisatu to
impair exclude, by direct unfriendly legisa-
tion, the institution of slavery does either ex
ist by virtue of the federal relations of the States
The second aterrogatbrv answer liz the affirm
alive, though being entitled to ptctection, does
not necessarily guarantee il. a man snot always
loving, law-abiding vifgaa. Yoc may not be able
to collect what is justly due you, Though exccr-
ton is in the HANDS of the Sheriff, or have per-
feet shield in TIL severity OF the laws against the
torch of the ncendiary the arts OF the negro steal
or, or the knife of the assassin.
The Sd question is extremely conditional ana sap
postious vet nv answer is hat if the Holder
has no projection in the law in the public senti-
ment of the continuity, or his own strong arm,
his best protection would be in fight from such an
inbosptable community.
The two remaining questions of the five read as
follows
4th When the question was submitted to Judge
Douglas: off they, the Southern States, secede
from the Unou UPON The inauguration OF Abraham
Lincoln, before lie commits an overt act against
their constitutional rights, will YOU advise or vim
dictate resistance by force to their secession r DO
you understand chat he answered ahrmauVely
If so, do yoa endorse his answer
9Th. 1.-THE State of Virginia, in her sovereign ca
paety. determines to secedc from tie Cnlon upon
fto of Abraham Lincoln ana the fed