Year: 1860

lie virtue. Before they will abandon their par
ty ties, and disrupt that political organization
which they have proudly claimed to be the
only conservative power in this republic, ade-
quate to the maintenance of constitutional
liberty and States-Rights, they viii demand
some higher motive than the mere will Of any
body of men, however respectable for their
talents or influence of numbers. The attempt
of "leaders," to swerye the Democratic masses
/ of Virginia from their political faith has been
: often tried, with uniform result-the politi-
! cal destruction Of the evil counsellors.
u What then is the issue of principle upon
which the secessionists divide the Democratic
party?


gress to provide for the protection of slave
property in the Territories by special legisla-
tion if the Territorial legislatures fail to make
such provision.


The objections of this doctrine are numer-
Gus, and as it appears to US, unanswerable.
And firstly we contend that the power and
duty claimed for Congress are anomalous.


1t is not pretended that it is the duty of
Congress to intervene for the protection of any
other description of property. A billiard table
for example is as obviously subject of prop
erty as slave; yet the beneficial use of bill
lard table may be prevented in Territory,
= as il State, by tax so high as to amount
to prohibition; yet it is not pretended that it
is the right or duty of Congress to intervene
for the protection of this property. The same
is true of spirituous liquors, and is generally
true of all property, the use of or traffic in
which involves considerations of sentiment or
morality, however misguided. In accordance
with this view the Democratic party and the
South have hitherto denied the jurisdiction of
Congress on the subject, claiming that slaves
be placed upon footing of precise equality
with all other property. tThe assertion of the
South has been in entire accordance with the
deliberately expressed opinion of General Lane,
the Secession candidate for the Vice Presiden-
cy, who in a speech delivered in the Senate
on the 10Th of December, 1859, three years
after the Dred Scott decision, said /: 'Congress
has NO POWERoyer the question of slavery;
they cannot under the Constitution establish
it in a Territory or prohibit it."


Secondly, we contend that the exercise of
such power, if it were lawful, would be pbysi-
cally impracticable.


No observation is more common more
true than this that no law can be executed
which is not upheld by local public sentiment.
! A duellist cannot be convicted of murder
in Virginia; Charleston jury will not pro-
claim the slave trade piracy; Mobile jury re-
/ fused to condemn fllibustering; American ju-
| ries will not punish the murderer of seducer
and the list might be greatly extended. For
analogous reasons it is absurd to hope for the
enforcement of slave code in free soil Ter
ritory, more especially when we remember that
the law sought to be enforced is the distaste-
fnl mandate of foreign legislature.
J Thirdly, though the power claimed were
+ regular and practicable, its exercise in contra
vention Of the popular will would be fatal
snare to the South.


1t being generally conceded that it is the
duty of Congress to admit a State with or
without slavery as the people may determine,
the intervention of Congress could have no
other effect than to induce shareholders totake
their property into Territory where, at pc
riod more or less remote, it would he destroy
ed with certainty and ruthessness proper
tionate to the opposition of the people to the
Intervention of Congress. And moreover, if
Intervention is to last no longer than during
the territorial condition, the property of the
STAKEHOLDER will become valuless precisely at
the instant that it rises into political influence
as an element of representation in Congress.
So that both in political and in pecuniary
sense we hold intervention" to the
South.


Fourthly, the establishment of this doctrine
would inevitably perpetuate the slavery agita-
tion in Congress.


To avert this fatal and constant agitation
has long been the aspiration of every patriots
heart. Conservation parties have in terms
proclaimed it paramount consideration of
policy, and conservative men have often shaped
their political relations with exclusive refer
ence to this object But the doctrine of in
tervention opens the door to infinite controver-
sy. Not only will the framing of each new
territorial bill be the signal for renewing the
battle, but Congress will be constantly assailed
with petitions on the one hand affirming the
protection to be inadequate, and on the other
unnecessarily great. One party will continu-
ally demand more protection; the other con-
tinually ask more restriction. Which party
will be most likely to obtain favorable hear
ing in Abolition Congress, it is rot difficult
to surmise; for Congress being sovereign and
independent within its sphere, no earthly pow
er can force it to pass law obnoxious to the
will of the majority. a-


Filthy, Though the principle were nor
NAL, practicable, and advantageous to us, and
fraught with no danger to the public peace, tits
question purely of legal construction of pow
ers, and must be settled by the Judiciary to
whose decision all Democrats, and none more
willingly than Judge Douglas, will cheerfully
bow. G


We are aware that it is claimed by some
that the Supreme Court has decided the ques-
ton, but surely Judge Douglas may be per-
mitted to doubt the fact when such a constitu-
tional lawyer as Hon. Reverdv johnson de-
nies it, and such political model as the can
didate of the seceders for the Vice President,
as we have above seen, denies all authority Of
Congress in terms no less unequivocal- When
the Supreme Court has decided it, or if that
tribunal has already decided it, Judge Doug-
las openly and on all suitable occasions avows
his resolve to acquiesce at once.


! Sixthly, We contend that the principle
sweeps away the last bulwark of Southern
safety on the slavery question. If the juris-
diction of Congress be once admitted on this
subject, the gate is at once opehed for the
largest license. It is idle to hope that the
action of Congress will be limited to favorable
legislation-idle in fact to hope that Con-
gress notoriousIy Black Republican, ever will
feel the truth of this more clearly than the
leaders of the Seceders They knoao that
Black Republican Congress viii not pass laws