Year: 1860

venton.

 I have thus shown that no usage or costum of the party was violated, as has been charged. Over three tourths Of the counties were present-more than quorum and by vote of over Mree to one the ma iority rule in making nominations was ad- opted. That the majority of a quorum shall do business, is principle that hes at the very foundation of our State govern ment, and a principle that has been recog- nized and established in every State demo- cratic convention ever held Tn Arkansas. The recent State convention, following the precedent set, also recognized and adopted it, and, as the principle that the majority shall rule has been acceptable to the de mocracy heretofore, it was thought 1t would prove acceptable now. Principles never change. either with circumstances or the lapse of time. They are the same every where and always That the majority shall rule in Arkansas is principle so we'll es- tablisbed that to alter 1t would be to alter the very nature of the State government itself.

 The State democratic convention, in all cases, was exceedingly liberal to those who opposed my nomination. It permitted the vofes of Jackson and Scott counties to be cast and counted against me, though neither of the counties was represented in the con yention. In the bill of indictment pre- ferred against the convention, think this fact should be set down to its credit. 1t was not a captious body by any means. It was composed of liberal and intelligent gentlemen who sincerely desired to ascertain the wish of majority of the democratic party of the State, and to act accordingly They acted generously on all occasions, and were far from meriting the opproblum sought to be cast upon them.

 The democratic State convention adopt ed platform that comments my cordial approval quote the resolution on the great issue that now divides the North and the South-the question in regard to pro lection to slave property in the territories:

 Resolued That we re-allirm the political prlnci- pies enunciated in the Cincinnati platform by the democracy of the United States in June, l836, and assert as illustrative thereof, that neither Con gress nor territorial legislature, whetherby direct | legislation, or by legislation of an indirect and un friendly character possess power to anul or lmpalr the constitutional rights of any citizen of the United States to take his slave property into the common territories and there hold and enloy the same, and that if experience should at any tune 1 prove that the judiciary and executive powers uo not possess the to insure protection to consul tutional rights in territ0ry-and if the territorial government should fail to provide the necessary remedies for that purpose. it will be the duty or | Congress to supply the deficiency

 These views have the indorsement ot a solemn decision of the supreme court of the United States That court held that "Me right of property in c slaVe 'S distinctly and expressly off,p,ed in Ms constitution. That "no uord can 5e toand in hte constr Julien mhich gives Congress greoter power orer siare property, or phich entities property of Hat Kind 70 Jess protectlon, Hoa property of ony other description. IHe only Po~er conterred iS Me poecer coapled wiM Me daty of guarding and protectng Me 01cner an htS nghts" The supreme court held that the territories, whether organized or unorgan- ized, are the common property ofthe States, and that they are held and governed by the federal government, as the representative and trustee of the people of the United

 

 States. All citizens of the United States have the right, under the constitution, to enter any of the territories with their pro- perty, including their slaves, and when there have the right to protection in the possession and enjoyment of their proper ty. Such is the decision of the supreme court. Such too are the views of our pre- sent able and patriotic President. Mir. Blu chanan used the following explicit language in his message:

 "The right has been established of every citi- zen to take his property of any kind, including slaves into the common territories belonging equally to all the States of the confederacy, and have it protected there under the constituton''

 Congress neither has the power to estab- fish or prohibit slavery in the territories. | This far non intervention in the domestic concerns of a territory Is the sound doe trine But if citizen the United States takes his slave into territory, he does so under the authority of the constitution, and is entitled to protection in the possession of that slave; and it is the imperative duty of Congress to afford suclI protection, when ever it is needed.

 If Congress cannot establish or prohibit slavery in territory, neither can 1t confer such power upon territorial legislature. That power rests solely with the people of the territory when they number enough to enttle them, under the apportionment law, to a representative in Congress, and when, after testing the adaptability of the soil and climate to slave labor, they come to form a constitution preparatory to admission as a State into the Union. And if the legls- lature of territory cannot prohibit slavery by direct means, neither can 1t do so by indirect means. The indirect means, such as unfriendly legislation by means of dis eliminating taxation" is as palpably in violation of the federal constitution as the direct, and morally far more obnoxious to censure.

 The doctrine of protection to slavery in the territories is one that may be denied now by portion of the democracy of the northern States, but it is doctrine based upon such solid foundations that, by in ouiry and discussion, it will soon obtain as the practice of the federal government All that Is necessary upon the part of the South is frmness and tenacity of purpose. We need not fear discussion. Discussion is the very life of the institution of slavery. The more the institution Is inquired into, and the more that is known of it, the more fixed and popular it becomes in the public mind. The past demonstrates this fact. Twenty years ago. nearl y the whole south ern people were apologists for slavery as necessary evil, but now not only the south ern, but respectable portion of the north ern people, think and believe the institu- ton of slavery to be common blessing to both the white and the black races. This has been brought about by discussion. The proposition to repeal the Missouri restrlc- ton, had it been made twenty years ago, would have met not only with the undivid- ed opposition of the free States, but with the opposition of a part of the slave States. It could not then have been carried. But now so great has been the change in the pub lie mind, that the restricting enactment has been wiped from the statute book, and no longer opposes the unlimited expansion of slavery. A great change is constantly going on in the popular mind-slow, it is true, but nevertheless sure and inevitable. All that is necessary upon the part of the South, in my opinion, Is to stand firmly by