Year: 1859

:, iihPicSSeu upon tHeHl " the law oi then previous ldomicil shall be changed by some competent local authority What IS competent local authority in a ter ritory will be elsewhere considered.

 3. The federal constitution carefully guards the rights of private property against the federal government itself, by declaring that 1t shall not be taken for public use without compensation, nor without due pro- cess of law. Slaves are private property, and every man who has taken an oath of fidelity to the constitution is religiously morally and politically bound to regard them as such. Does anybody suppose that a constitution which acknowledges the scaredness of private property so fully would wantonly destroy that right, not by any words that are found in 1t, but by mere implication from its general principles? It might as well be asserted that the general prnclples of the constitution gave Lane and Montgomery license to steal horses in the valley of the Osage.

 4. The supreme court of the United States has decided the question. After solemn argument and careful consideration, that august tribunal has announced its opin- ion to be that a slaveholder, by going into federal territory, does not lose the title he had to his negro in the State from which he came. In former times, question of constitutional law once decided by the su- preme court was regarded as settled by all, except that little band of ribald intidels, who meet periodically at Boston to blas- pheme our religion and plot rebellion against the laws of the country The lea ders of the so-called republican party have lately been treading close on the heels of their abolition brethren; but it Is devoutly to be hoped that MT. Douglas has no inten- tion to follow their example. In case he is elected president, he must see the laws faith fully executed Does he think he can keep that oath by fighting the judiciary?

 }. The legislative history of the country shows that all the great statesmen of former times entertained the same opinion, and held 1t so firmly that they did not even think of any other. It was universally taken for granted that slave remained slave, and free man a free man, in the new territories, until change was made in their condition by some positive enactment. Nobody believed that slave might not have been taken to and kept in the North west territory if the ordinance of 17S7, or some other regulation had not been made to prohibit it. The Missouri restriction of lo2O was imposed solely because it was understood (probably by every member of that Congress) that, in the absence of re- striction, slave property would be as law tul in the eye of the constitution above 36e 30g as below; and all agreed that the mere absence of restriction did, in fact make it lawful below the compromise line.

 6. It IS right to learn wisdom from our enemies. The republicans do not point to any express provision of the constitution, nor to any established rule of law, which sustains their views. The ablest men among them are driven by stress of necessity to hunt for arguments in code unrevealed, unwritten, and undefned, which they put above the constitution or the Bible. and call it higher law" The ultra abolition ists of New England do not deny that the constitution is rightly interpreted by the democrats, as not interfering against slavery in the territories; but they disdain to obey what they pronounce to be ''an agreement with death and covenant with he'll"

 '. What did MT. Douglas mean when he proposed and voted for the Kansas Ne braska bill, repeating the Missouri restric- tion? Did he intend to tell southern men that, notwithstanding the repeal of the pro- hibition, they were excluded from those territories as much as ever? Or did he not regard the right of a master to his slave perfectly good whenever he got rid of the prohibition? Did he, or anybody else at that time, dream that 1t was necessary to make positive law in favor of the slave holder before he could go there with safety? To ask these questions is to answer them. The kansas-Nebraska bill was not meant as delusion or snare. It was well un- derstood that the repeal alone of the re- strictlon against slavery would throw the country open to everything which the con stltution recognised as property.

 We have thus given what we believe to be the opinion held by the great body of the democratic party-namely, that the federal constitution does not establish slavery any where in the Union; that it permits black man to be either held in servitude or made free as the local law shall decide; and that Tn Territory where no local law on the subject has been enacted, 1t keeps both the slave and tbe free negro in the status al- ready impressed upon them until it shall be changed by competent local authority. We have seen that this is sustained by the reason of the thing, by great principle of public law, by the words of the constitu- tion, by solemn decision of the Supreme Court, by the whole course of our legisla- tion, by the concession of our political op- ponents, and, finally, by the most important act in the public life of Mr. Douglas him. self

 Mir. Douglas imputes another absurdity to his opponents when he charges them with insisting '' that it is the duty of the judiciary to protect and maintain slavery in the territories without any law upon the subject" The judge who acts without law acts against law; and surely no sentiment so atroclous as this was ever entertained by any portion of the democratic party. The right ot a master to the services of his slave in a territory, is not against law nor with out law, but in full accordance with law. If the law be against 1t we are all against it. Has not the emigrant to Nebraska legal right to the OK team, which he borght in Ohio, to haul him over the plains? Is not his title as good to it in the territory as 1t was in the State where he got it? And what should be said of judge who tells him that he is not protected, or that he is maintained in the possession of his proper ty without any law upon the subject?''

 II. We had right to expect from Mir. Donglas at least clear and intelligible de- fnition of his own doctrine. We are dis appointed It is hardly possible to con- ceive anything more difficult to comprehend. Wewill transcribe it again, and do what can be done to analyze it.

 "Those who believe that the constitution of the United States neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or territories beyond the power of the people legally to control it, but leaves the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate thelr do- mestic institutions in their own way. sub- ject only to the constitution of the United States.'"