Daily national Democrat., 1860-10-03
Quibblingl Arguments of the Secess-
inuiSfS.


they could engraft upon it certain explanato'
ry slave code resolutions Of their own, would
attempt by any kind of argument however
ridiculous, to show that the platfrom does not
deny the right of such Congressional inter
vention, in the territories as they (the sece
ders) claim. In the language of the platform
it announced that "the American Democracy
recognize and adopt the principles contained
in the organic laws establishing the territories
Of Kansas and Nebraska, as embodyng the
only sound and safe solution of the slavery
question, uppn which the great national idea
Of the people of this whole country repose in
Its determined conservatism Of the Union,
-non-interference by Congress with slavery
in State and territory, or in the District of
Columbia"
Now. what we're the organic laws estab-
fishing the territories of Kansas and Nebras-
ka. The bill organizing these territories,
proclaimed that "the Legislative power of
the territory shall extend to all rghtful SUBJ
iects oflegislation consistent with the Cousti
tuition of the United States and the provisions
of this act ;" "that all questions pertaining TO
slavery in the territories, and in the States
to be framed therefrom, are to be left to the
decision of the people residing therein by
their appropriate representative to be chosen
by them for that purpose, and "that all cases
involving the title to slaves and questions of
personal freedom, are referred to the adiudi-
cation of the local tribunals, with the right Of
. appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States" The records show that all agreed,
that the slavery question was transferred
from Congress to the territories "The bill
proposes" said Mr.. Benjamin, "to announce
to the people of the United States, that the
general government is not to legisase at all
upon the question of slavery" This was non
interference by Congress on the slavery ques-
tion 1t was so understood then, and was so
understood by the Cincinnati Convention,
when it unanimously reiterated the doctrine.
But the secessionists now, in defence of their
,, slave code policy endeavor to make it appear
Il that the Cincinnati Convention did not mean
u non-interferenco by Congress with slavery in
the territories, and in support of that position,
= one of their organs says;
is at will be observed that the principle
y proclaimed is 'non-interference by Congress
! with slavery in State or territory, or IN the
u District of Colunlbia If, therefore, the con
e. vention meant to proclaim the doctrine that
x Congress could not interfere to protect prop
~ erty in the territories, it also meant to apply
/ the same principle to the District of Colum-
bia "
y This conclusion by no means follows. 1t is
y conceded, we believe, that Congress is the
- only law making power in the District" and
. hence property is protected there, Congress
must do it. 1t has been a mooted question
i. however, as to whetheror not Congress pos,
n sessed the power to prohibit slavery in the
= District, and if we are not much mistaken
a James Buchanan himself has maintained that
h Congress has that power. 1t was against
W this policy of prohibiting slavery in the Dis
il trict, that the Convention took ground. But
says the paper from which the above extract
- is quoted
CAS- the identical language is used with
q reference to both the territories and the Dis
be trict, it follows that the Convention did not
mean to deny the power and duty of Congress
to protect property in the territories"
Is 1t meant to deny any Legislation at all by
"a Congress in regard to slavery in the terrific
'd res.
Is This was the understanding of the Kansas
Nebraska bill, which the Convention endors
t ed. This was how the Kansas n ebraska
T bill was understood by those who supported
c it in Congress. That bill distinctly gives to
IS the territorial legislature the right to legis-
g late in regard to slave property, thus trans
i ferring the legislation on this subject from
If Congress to where it properly belonged
t. What great point is made from the fact that
1t the Cincinnati Convention spoke of the Dis
l. trict of Columbia, the States and the territo-
e ries, all in the same sentence This fact is a
IS God send to the secessionists, as much so, as
1t the adoption of the unit rule at Charleston
b rule they voted for, and then denounced
n as infamous" In their opinion, because the
States, the territories, and the District of
Columbia were spoken of in the same connec-
tion, and the same language applied to them,
: non.interference by Congress with slavery,
does not mean that Congress ought not to
legslate upon the subject. What do they
s think the doctrine of non.intervention by
r Congress with slavery means? Does it mean
, that Congress may pass law to protect or
e establish, but not to exclude? If so, what
goes with the doctrine of Congressional nonin
q teryention with slavery in territories, as
4 ayowed by the Kansas Nebraska bill, and re-
Is affirmed by the Cincinnati platforom Nom
5 interference by Congress with slavery, if it
means anything, means that Congress must
not bother itself about the subject at all, but
leave it to those directly interested in it, and
who are supposed to be the best judges of the
! matter. 1t is useless to say that the Cincin-
natl Convention in re-ahirming the doctrine
of Congressional nonintervention, did not
mean non Intervention in broadest sense
of the term-useless to say that it did not
e mean that the doors of Congress should shut
the slavery question out.
SIERRA COUNTY FOR DoUGLAs.-A gentleman
from Downieville, who arrived in this citv
last evening-and who is we'll posted in 20
litieals matters in that section-informs us
Il