Year: 1859

| peileNe III eiie iHiaiiiuic Verlety Of ms words as part of their faith

 The style of the article is, in some re- spects, highly commendable. It is entirely free from the vulgar clap-tra of the stump: has no vain adornment of classical scholar ship; 1t shows no signs of the eloduent Senator; it is even without the logic of the great debator. Many portions of it are very obscure. It seems to be an unsuccess. ful effort at legal precision; like the writing of a judge, who is trying in vain to give good reasons for wrong decision on a question of law which he has not quite mas tered.

 With the help of Messrs. Seward and Lincoln, he has defined accurately enough the platform of the so-called republican party; and he does not attempt to conceal his conviction that their doctrines are, in the last degree, dangerous They are. most assurediy, full of evil and saturated with mischief The irrepressible conaict'' which they speak of with so much plea- sure between the opposing and endur- ing forces" of the northern and southern States, will be fatal not merely to the peace of the country, but to the existence of the government itself. MT. Douglas knows this, and he knows also that the democratic party is the only power which is, or can be, organized to resist the republican forces or oppose their hostile march upon the capital. He who divides and 7weakens the friends of the country at such a crisis III her fortunes assumes very grave re- sponsibility

 Mir. Douglas separates the democratic party into three classes, and describes them as follows:

 First. Those who believe that the con- stitution of the United States neither estab fishes 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 ther domestic institutions in their own way, subject onl ly t. the constitution of the United States

 Second. Those who believe that the con- stitution establishes slavery in the territo- rles, and wlthholds from Congress and the territorial legislature the power to control it, and who insist that, in the event the ter ritorial legislature fails to enact the reoui site laws for it's protection, it becomes the imperative duty of Congress to intcrpose its authority and furnish such protection.

 Third. Those who, while protesting to believe that the constitution establishes slavery in the territories beyond the power of Congress or the territorial legislature to control 1t, at the same time protest against the duty of Congress to interfere for its protection; but insist that it is the duty of the judiciary to protect and maintain slave " in the territories without any law upon the subject"

 We give Mr. Douglas the full benefit of his own statement This is his mode of ex- pressing those differences, which, he says, disturb the harmony and threaten the n- tegrlty, of the American democracy. These passages should, therefore, be most careful ly considered.

 The first class is the one to which he himself belongs, and to both the others he is equally opposed. He has no right to come between the second and third class.- Il the difference which he speaks of does exist among his opponents, it is their busi- ness, not his, to settle it or fight 1t out We shall, therefore, contine ourselves to the dispute between MT. Douglas and his followers on the one hand, and the rest of the democratic party on the other, presum- ing that he will be willing to observe the principle of non-intervention in all matters with which he has no concern.

 We will invert the order in which he has discussed the subject, and endeavor to show

 l. That he has not correctly stated the doctrine held by his opponents; and,

 7. That his own opinions, as given by himself are altogether unsound.

 l. lie says that certain portion of the democratic party believe, or profess to be- lieve, that the constitution establishes slave " ln the territories, and insist that it is the duty of the judiciary to maintain it there without any law on the subject. We do not charge him with any intention to be un- fair; but we assert that he has in fact done wrong to, probably, nineteen twentieths of the party, by attempting to put them on grounds which they never chose for them selves.

 The constitution certainly does not estab- llsh slavery in the territories, nor anywhere else. Nobody in this country ever thought or said so. But the constitution regards as sacred and inviolable all the rights which a citizen may legally acquire in State.- Ii man acquires property of any kind in a State, and goes with 1t into the territory he Is not for that reason to be stripped o 1t. Our simple and plain proposition is that the legal owner of slave or other chat tel may go with it into federal territory without forefeiting his title staf

 Who denies the truth of this, and upon what ground can it be controverted? The reasons which support it are very obvious and very conclusive. As jurist and 8 statesman, Mr. Douglas ought to be fami. liar with them, and there was time when he was supposed to understand them very well. We will briefly give him few of them.

 l. It is an automatic principle of public law that right of property, a private rela- tion, condition, or status, lawfully existing in our State or country, is not changed by the mere removal of the parties to another country, unless the law of that other coun- try be in direct conflict with it. For in- otdHIc. A HiaiiiaSo ieSoiiy oOiSniiiiIcu III France Is binding in America; children born in Germany are legitimate here if they are legitimate there; and a merchant who buys goods in New York according to the laws of that State may carry them to Illinois and hold them there under his contract It is precisely so with the status of a negro carried from one part of the United States to another; the question of his freedom ol servitude depends on the law of the place where he came from, and depends on that alone, if there be no conflicting law at tho place to which he goes or is taken. The federal constitution, therefore, recognise. slavery as a legal condition wherever tht local governments have chosen to let il stand unabolished, and regards it as illega wherever the laws of the place have forbid den 1t. A slave being property in Virgi mia, remains property; and his master has all the right of a Virginia master wherever he may go, so that he goes not to any place where the local law comes in conflict witf | his ripht If will not ba pretendad that thf