Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-11-02

10th Dist.-lSRAEL ROBINSON. Berkeley.
18th Dist. N. LIGGETT, Rockingham.
18th Dist.-D; H. HoGE, Montg s, omery;
18th Dist.-C. J. STUART Doddrfdge.
18th Dfst.--WM. G.. BROWN, Preston.
judicial Projections.
Il is amazing that men who understand
the law, many Of them being the makers OF
the law, have with so much insolent indus
try in this canvass persevered against the
full blaze of truth and the logic Of facts, to
delude the people into the belief that the
South should insist on Intervention by Con-
gress for protection under the existing leg
islature unaltered. It cannot fail to be seen,
as we have shown in former articles on this
topic, unless the Kansas act is first altered
so as to carry back the federal Legislature to
the policy it rendered to that act and rein
state the Congressional power Of revision of
territorial legislation, that the protection
they claim by special acts of Congress. can
never be necessary. By that act of 1854
the territorial people are constituted ''per-
fsctly free" to legislate on 'all suitable sub
jects," consistently With the Constitution Of
the U. States It is within the province Of
the Court alone under that act to decide
whether, when case arises, the local
legislature by it's enactment has overstepped
the constitutional limitations Of its power
over the suitable subject Gifts legislation
We repeat, with all humility and Difference
to any one that will show cur error, if we
be not irrefragibly right, that, if restraints
sufficient to enable the courts to protect any
species of property, are not already in the
Kansas act Of 1854, the only proper and
regular course is for Congress to alter that
organic act so as to supply the deficiencies
of restraints upon the local legislature. This,
however, though in framing future organic
acts it may be done, cannot be done with
the acts of 1854, because the South insist
Ing Oh that act as it is and by giving in the
most uncqivocal manner her pledge of hon.
or in specific agreement to abide BY
that Legislation, is bound by the policy
it distinctly inaugurated in an acknowledged
departure from the inva' liable practice, there
tofore, Of retaining in Congress the power
of supervision. And if federal protection is
to terminate with the territorial existence
the interference Of Congress, by any altera-
ton Of the organic act or otherwise, can new
er be necessary in any contingency in which
the Supreme Court can be appealed to. for
the reason subsisting in the structures of the
General Government. That reason is that
if an appeal, the court, in the given case,
would sustain a territorial enactment prohib-
ting the existence Of the particular species
of property Of whatever kind in the terrific
ry, it would not sustain congressional en-
actment protecting it, and if the court would
sustain a territorial enactment protecting
that property. it would not sustain Con-
gressional enactment prohibiting it. The
Court is the South's only stay and standby
for the existence Of slavery with Comsttt~-
tional protection:
The logic of facts tells the same non-ne-
cessity for protection by Congress under the
Kansas act. The refusal of the Senate last
winter to adopt Senator Browns resolution
or to have his Bill for the protection Of
slave owners in Kansas reported and passed,
can be accounted for only on one Of two sup
positions. The Senate in its Southern mem
bers either deemed protection in as clear a
case as can possibly arise, unnecessary, or
else the sixteen Southern Senators who vo-
ted against that resolution and did not unite
with Mr.. Brown to have his Bill reported,
and who are now in support of Mr.. Brock
inridge on platform demanding protection
by Congress when necessary, are acting de-
lusively in urging the people to insist on it
in an election, when they did not act it out
in their representative capacity in the case
of territorial enactment abolishing slavery
in that territory. Let the supposition most
honorable to them be the rather indulgent,
that they did not pass Bill for protection,
because the slave owners there and then,
having recourse to the Courts, did not need
protection by Congress, and the doctrine of
protection by Congress "when necessary"
must fall to the ground as no clearer case
than that was, can ever arise.
The Cincinnati Enquirer has accurate re- i
turns from nearly every county in the State
of Ohio, which show that instead of TO- |
900 Republican majority, it is only 1884,
and that the few remaining counties will not