The record-union., 1894-10-29
COMPARISON OF THE REUoRp.

UNION said that if Mr.. Estee offered an
amendment to proposed bill before the
Legislature of which he was a member.
to the effect that no verdict should be
based on the uncorroborated testimony of
negro, the opinion which prompted it
was legacy from slavery. Whereupon
our esteemed contemporary says that
California was formally admitted into
the Union as a free State in 1850 and that
theremever was a negro slave in this
State.
All this is true, but the conception and
moralso of slavery were in this State. The
slaYe-holding conception of the character
of the negro was present. Slavery con-
templated the negro not as man, but as
chattel. Under the common law all
animals free by nature were not capable
ofprivate ownership. But negro, by
virtueof the statutory provisions enacted
oy the slave States of the Union. was an
animal subject of private ownership. He
was not man and not capable of en-
franchisement; not eligible by his nature
to the exercise of civil rights or privi-
leges.
The Sutter Independent should take
this monstrous doctrine clearly into its
conscience; that this was the conception
upon which slavery was based, and upon
which it depended for justification. It
should realize that the Shareholder
owned and 4old men of the colored race.
1t denied to the colored man the exist
ence of conscience, sensibility and i'm
mortality. and thereby denied to him
destiny. The stronghold of defense of
this institution was in the Democratic
party, the party in which Mr.. James
Budd has been and is shining light.
When we said that if Mr.. Estee intro
duced the amendment referred to, twas
legacy from slavery. we meant that it was
simply and strictly in accordance with
view of the character of the negro upon
which the system was sustained by
the people of the United States for nearly
three centuries, and which the Democratic
party defended to its very last breath
We meant that to deny the negro the
right to testify in courts of law was ex-
actly consonant with the manner in
which he was contemplated by the insti-
tuition of slavery itself. The National
conscience becoming enlightened, it be-
came necessary for slavery to hide itself
behind local liberation. Hence, the doc
trine of States rights which was the
cardinal doctrine of the Democratic
party; and subsequently the doctrine
of squatter sovereignty, by which it was
sought to permit the introduction into
the Territories of the United States of all
species of property known to the law of
any State. The great lights of the Demo
cratic party, James Buchanan, Stephen
A. Douglas, judah p. Benjamin and
Jefferson Davis, men to whose memory
the Democratic party would build monu-
ments to-day if they were in the monu-
ment-building business, contended that,
whereas, slave was property by virtue
of statutory provision in Alabama, he
Ohs W 10 1OSdIOGQ dS property III The
common territory of the United States;
that all property capable of private
ownership held and owned by citizen
of Illinois might be tax en- into the Terri
tories; but that the doctrine that Con-
gress had a right to legislate as to the
holding of slaves in Territory denied
to the owners of slaves in the slave States
the right to take their species of property
into the Territories. The enlightened
conscience of the Nation found itself at
variance with the views of the Democratic
party.
The campaign of 1860 was fought on the
single issue, Has Congress the right to
legislate as to slavery in the Territories?
The decision of that question determined
the whole subject as to the manner in
which the nation would contemplate
slavery. In the Territories then the com
mon-law doctrine that animals free by
nature were not capable of private own
ership would be overthrown, and the
statutory provision of the slave States
that property in man was permissible
would be established.
Our friends of the Sutter I7adependent
should not be ignorant of these things.
nor of the historic responsibility OF the
Democratic party in the premises When
therefore it seeks to make point against
the Republican candidate for Governor
on the ground that he once introduced an
amendment completely consonant with
the debased conceptions of the time in
which it was offered, it raises an issue
unfortunate to its own party history.
We said in our former consideration of
this subject that Mr.. Budd had been nm
fortunate in raising this issue; that il
naturally led to a comparison of the rec
ord of the TWO parties on this subject.
Our contemporaries should remember
that while the personality of candidates
is matter of much Importance, there is
matter of still greater importance un-
Gerlying the campaign, and that is the
question as to what elements of national
life shall triumph in the election. With
Mr.. Estee's election, the thought and
conception which freed the slave, en-
franchised him, restored him to his lib