Year: 1860

COuIu give OuCuCC, CNCu W tuOoC &WuO
chanced to be his political opponents.


There never had been time when
the Union was 50 seriously threatened by
the evils against which the Father OF our
Country, in his Farewell Address, cautioned
his countrymen. We are now threatened
with the organization of sectional parties,
bounded by geographical lines, and menacing
the peace and harmony of the whole country.
The Republican party demand possession of
the Federal government, in order that power
may be welded for the purpose of control
ling the domestic institutions of the various
Territories of the United States. A South.
ern sectional party demand possession of
the Federal government for similar pur
pose; each proposing to WELD the power in
a manner adverse to the opposite section.
The Republican party demands that the
Federal government shall use the power to
prohibit slavery in the Territories, when the
people of those Territories want slavery.
The Southern sectional party demands that
the Federal governmentshall use the power
to prohibit slavery in the Territories, when
the people of the Territories do not want it.


A voice, "Well, tell us what you say
yourself?"


Judge Douglas would tell them what he
said. Non-intervention by the Federal
government with the domestic institutions
of the people, anywhere and everywhere


Loud applause. He would have the Fed
eral government confined within the narrow
limits prescribed by the Constitution of the
United States. The Federal government
was created only for special purposes, and
its powers we're properly restricted and
enumerated by the Constitution. The ques-
tion of slavery and of the domestic institu-
tions of the people was not one of the pow>
ers delegated to the Federal government by
the Sovereign States. Suppose it should be
admitted that the Federal government
should take the power over the institution
of slavery, then we should have a northern
party insisting that the whole force of the
Federal government should be used against
slavery. and southern party insisting that
the whole force of the Federal government
should be used for slavery, and this would
at once create an irrepressible conflict that
would be incompatible with the peace and
harmony of the Union.


1t was held that the southern people have
the same right to move into the Territories
of the United States with their slave prop
erty, as the northern people have to move
into the Territory with their horses and cat
tie; and that they are just as much entitled
to the protection of the law. The very
proposition itself shows the ignorance that
prevails in relation to the subject of the
protection of property In the Territories.
When did the Federal government ever pass
laws to protect the oxen and horses of
northern men in the Territories of the
United States? Congress had never even
passed criminal code for the Territories
1t was its duty simply to organize Terri.
tory, giving it Legislature of its own, and
leaving that legislature, as the representa-
tive of the people, to make all laws relating
to the domestic policy of the Territory, and
for the protection of property. The North
ern man asks no Congressional code for the
protection of his property. He takes his
property into the Territory subject to the
local laws, and he depends upon the local
laws for its protection. The Southern man
stands upon the same footing. When the
Southern man claims the right to go to the
Territory with his property, be goes with
the same right the Northern man does, SUBJ
ject to the LEGAL law of the Territory, and
looking to that local law for bis protection.


The Dred Scott decision declares that
slave property in the Territories is the same
as other property, and stands on the same,
footing. If so, it is subject to local law
the same as other property. This outcry
for sectional laws in a Territory for the pro-
lection OF one description of property alone,
evinces extraordinary ignorance of the whole
policy OF the Territorial government of the
country.


If we are willing to trust the people of
the Territories to protect every other spe-
cies OF property, and to regulate every other
relation IN life in Territory, why are we
not willing to give them the same power in
regard to slavery? We allow the Legisla>
ture OF Territory to make laws in regard
to the relation of husband and wife, of pa
rent and child, Of guardian and ward. Why
not, then, allow them to make laws in re.
gard to the relation of master and servant
Is there anything more sacred 10 that
relation than in any other in life? Was
it to be supposed that the people of Ter
ritory would not make such laws as would
best promote their own interests |?


He could see no reason why the people
should not be as capable of self-government
in Territory as in State. Who are the
people of a Territory? Are they not citi-
zens from New York and from every other
State in the Union? And are not the citi-
zens of New York State who 60 to the Ter.
ritories, as competent to make laws for their
own government, as they were before their
emigration? is it true that the American
citizen loses the right of sel>government
because be passes from State to Terri.
tory 2? .s:-s, ..- -, =. 49,


THe BLAcKBERRY CRoP. The blackberry
crop will be in full perfection by next week.