Daily national Democrat., 1860-09-20
Col. I.ander's Position.

munication in the DENocRNr, of yesterday,
is quite noteworthy He says that 'the
Northern man has a right to carr an Abo-
Iition speech in a carpet bag into that Terri
tory which is owned in common by all the
States" and POUNDS it uron that clause in the
Constitution which declares that Congress
shall make no law ablijgug the freedom of
speech or Of the press" If Congress, he
says, cannot obrid-c the freedom Of speech
or Of the press, SO neither can Territorial
Legislature do it. Ills position then is, that
/ man may carry an Abolition speoch--or
| what is known in the South as an iucendiary
/ document-into q Trritoyu but not into
/ STATE, for as he says in another place, "to
carry an incendiary document into a soyer-
! eign State would expose the possessor Of it
/ to the just penalties of municipal law" 1t
/ follows then from his language that q state
/ has right to abridge the freedom Of speech
or of the press, but a Territory has not See
! his remarks in full on that head in lis com
munication According to this logic, he
grants that the municipal TAR is superior to
the authority of Congress, for Congress can
not abridge free speech while State can
Very well, is there no municipal law in the
Territories also? Why cannot the munich
pal law there as well abridge the freedom Of
speech or Of the press? Because says Col.
Lander, Territorial Legislature is mere
creature of Congress and cannot exercise u
power which does not pertain to the Federal
Government We would reply that various
judicial tribunals are but the creatures OF
. Congress- and yet they exercise powers not
pertaining to the Federal Government The
municipal law regulates local matters, and,
when Territorial Legislature is established,
its business is to legislate for the government
of the local affairs OF the Territory With
ont, however, stopping to argue this point
= let Us see what is the effect of such pcsi.
ton as is taken by Col Lander. lie denies
to the Territorial Legislature the right TO
: prevent the Northern man coming in with
I Abolition documents lie denies the same
right to Congress At the same time he j.
for Congressional protection to slavery in
the Territories. Now, 10 is we'll known that
not the least protection to slavery in the
Southern States is the suppression Of incen-
diary documents. Slave property can be no
more secure in q Territory than a state with
out 81 ch suppression. Congressional inter
vention in its behalf, then, would be nullity,
Tor The Aboltionist would still preach that
the institution of slavery had 10 moral OF
4 legal existence in the Territory, and that no
: law ought to be respected which recognized
: slave property. His tongue and his per
y would have full license to stir Up all kinds o
! commotion and to shake the peace Of th'
social organization. Where slavery exists
. no abolitcusm must be allowed to b,
preached, If the property in slaves is expected
to be al all secure. There is no safety for
that kind of property where there is no law
to forbid the ut.erance Of iucoudiary senti-
mems To tie down both the Territorial
Legislature and Congress also in this regard,
so that neither power could interfere to
abridge the free speech Of the Abolitouis'
= would be but a poor protection to slave
property. much safer protection would it
be to allow the Territorial Legislature, in
s the exercise of its municipal authority, and
e the power Of regulating its own domestic
IS concerns, to pass such laws as it might see fit
i regarding slave property as well as every
other species Of property within its jurisdic-
t tion. The Territorial Legislature of New
. Mexico has passed laws Of this character
b and abolitionam is as much under legal ban
there to-day, if we are rightly informed. as
it is in any of the States Of the South On
the other hand, the Territorial Legislature Of
Kansas has passed laws prohibiting slavery
mad prohibiting anything that looks to its
protection The rule seems to be working
well enough in both cases Where the peo-
pie want slavery, the municipal law will
protect it, and where they do not want it the
municipal law will not protect it. But, if
you grant protection TO this kind of property
at ALL let it be full and complete, and not a
halfway business such as it would he, if
you let rebellion be preached to the slaves
or Abolition documents be circulated
The fact is that, whether the constitutional
views of Col. Lander on this head be correct
or Incorrect, the true solution of all the diff
fculties that arise in regard TO this vexed
subject is to be found in Non-Iutcrvenlion
by Congress with the social relations and
municipal regulations of Territorial Gov
erument.