Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1860-03-08
whai q no plaerenee 3

What ia the Difference
We observed few days ago lha, upon
no generation Of American public men has
tho duty Of practical sta,csnapship more ipi
periously desolyed, Than upon thoss who
nov exercise ne noufrol ef public niIaiss--
snd yet the Democrslio party lsheipg drig-
on 70 the very brink % destruction, ~ pro.
htIsss discussion in reference to question
the solution Of which Is already provided for
by law. The difference is, as to the time
when il /, competent for the people Of
Territory to decide whether slavery shall
exist or not All agree that they may do go
when they are ready TO adopt State Con.
stitution and apply for admission into the
Union. Those who sustain Judge Douglas,
hold that the people Of territories through
their legislatures, can lawfully legislate up
on the subject Of slavery whilst they are
yet in the territorial condition-the same as
upon any her subject The majority of
Southern statesmen, on the other hand
noso claim that such legislation would be
unconstitutional. This is the whole sum
and substance of the matter in controversy.
Now territorial legislatures will either
pass laws prohibiting slavery, or they will
not. II they do pass such laws there is not
the slightost obstacle in the way Of having
the question Of such legislative power brot
d,rsoily before the snprewe Court Of the
United ssaten and finally adiudieatsd. II
shey do rot legislate at All upon the subject.
according 70 tue judgment already pronoun
oed In the Dred Scott case, the right of the
master to hold his slave is unimpeachable.
This decision Of the Supreme Court is now
the law Of the land. Ii fully and clearly
decides the question AS to CoNGREssIoNAL
POWER over slavery in the Territories-it
does not however decide the question Of the
power of the Territorial Legislature. But
even suppose we admit as some claim, that
it does decide that question Incidentally
what is the objection to having it decided
directly2 What is there then in this diver,
sity Of opinion in the Democratic party,
(und it cannot be denied that such diversity
does exist) that should cause fatal divis.
ion in our ranks and bring upon us the dis
grace Of defeat, aud upon the country the
calamities that must inevitably follow the
success Of the Republican party2 Is it not
in its very nature purely Judicial question
in the end. How then can the constitu'
tonal rights of the South be put in jeopardy
even if Territorial legislature should pass
law declaring that no mau should hold a
slave therein. Would he not and could he
not at once appeal to the Supreme Court of
the United States to have that question de-
cided And here We may add that Judge
Douglas himself, the man whom the South
then 80 zealously sustained, was the author
oi this very just and salutary provision,
which is Incorporated in the 9th section of
the Kansas. Nebraska act.
Such then is tho present position Of the
question. There is no difference that is of
the slightest practical moment The lawful
decision OF the matter in controversy is al
ready provided for. The Senatorial Caucus
itself admits the sheer absurdity of all this
discussion, by resolving that f the judicial
power SHALL PROVE INsUFgIcIENT to protect
The rights Of slave holders in the Territories.
THEN that Congress ought to pass laws for
that purpose Would it not be quite as
well for the interests Of the Democrats par,
~ and the repose Of the country, for these
gentlemen to wait and see whether the judi
cial power shall prove thus powerless
The decisions of the Supreme Court CC
United Stutes have, we believe hitherto been
regarded as good law, and have generally
been respected and enforced. To talk about
the Judicial power being inadequate in a case
Of this kind is, with all due respect to the
high authority of caucus Of United States
Senators, utter absurdity--lor we submit
whether it is not equally the bvunden and
constitutional duty of the Executive power
of the general government to enforce the
decisions Of the Supreme Court As THE LAW
OF THE LAND, as it is the dury Of the Execu
tive to enforce the execution of the laws of
Congress2 What then would be gained by
resorIing to legislation by Ccngress-what
but the reputation of the wholesome prin-
ciPle Of npn'intervention, which a unan-
nous Democracy adopted as one Of the
principles of the party at Cincinnati 10 1856
and upon which they elected Mr.. Buchanan
to the Presidency
1t does seem to Us that, under these cir
eamstances, there must be some ulterior and
sinister purpose in the keeping alive Of this
dlscord and the continu nee of this discus.
sion, We can not afford to be thus weak.
ening ourselves in The presence of the ene-
my, and manufacturing ammunition for
them Why can We not then as in times
past, allow these differences of opinion to
exist, subject of course to final decision
Of hgally constituted arbiter when a
practical occasion presents ITSELF This is
out only true policy. Those who repudiate
1t, deserve to be repudiated by the party.
\