Year: 1859




The article Of Judge Douglas, which appeared
In Harper's Magazine, has been reviewed at
great length by the Washington Constitution.
Attorney General Black is supposed TO be the
author Of the review, but by some it 81 attribu-
ted to the President. The article was re-pub-
lished in the New York Herald and other or
gans of the President, and whoever may be the
author, It no doubt expresses the opinions OF
the Administration. The author does not 10
any case fairly meet the arguments presented
by Judge Douglas. His principal object seems
to be to misrepresent the position Of Douglas
and endeavor to show that be has not 10 all Gu
ses been consistent. Admitting that Douglas
has been inconsistent upon the question ofPop
ular Sovereignty, and It does not prove that he
is wrong now. 1t is not true, however. that
Douglas has been inconsistent upon this ques-
tion, for IL be had been bis reviewer could have
made it SO appear without resorting to misrep-
resentation. Ae specimen Of bic style Of ar
gument, we make the following extract:


What did Mr.. Douglas when be proposed and vo-
ted for the Bill repeating the Missouri
restriction Did he intend to tell Southern men that
notwithstanding the repeal Of the prohibition they were
excluded from those Territories much everf Or did
he not regard the right Of master TO his slave perfectly
good whenever he got rid Of the prohibition Did he
any body else at that time dream that II was necessary
TO make positive law In favor OF the STAKEHOLDER before
he could 20 there with saeyY To ask these questions Is
10 answer them. The as-Nebraska Bill was not
meant a deusion a snare. u was well understood
that the repeal alone Of the restriction against slavery
would throw the country open TO everything which the
Constitution recognized as property.


When Douglas voted for the Kansas-Nebras-
ka Bill, he meant. what the Bill itself declared,
neither to legislate slavery into the Territories
nor exclude Il therefrom, but TO leave the peo-
pie thereof perfectly free either to establish or
exclude the institution as they should think
proper. 1t was then well understood that the
qnestion was to be localized in the Territories;
II q majority of the people wanted slaves they
would have the right to pass laws protecting
the owners In their right to such property, II
they did not want them they we're at liberty to
enact such laws as would exclude the institu-
tion. This was the opinion entertained by all
the leading Democrats who voted for the repeal
Of the Missouri restriction In 1854, and Doug
las still maintains the same position.


The reviewer admits that the Constitution
does not carry slavery into the Federal Terri
tories; but he holds that the Territorial Legis-
latures have no right to enact laws excluding
the institution, and depicts ia vigorous Ian
guage the injustice Of one portion Of people
depriving another of their property. Such ar
guments would well become a monarcbist who
did not believe that the people had the capacity
to govern themselves. II Ia doubtless true.
that majority Of the people, in any State or
Territory, have the power to infct serious in
jury upon the minority; but our system Of gov
ernment is based on the theory that the people
have the capacity to govern themselves, and
will act 10 accordance with the principles Of
justice. We cannot assent to the doctrine,
however, that it would be unjust for majority
of the people of Territory to exclude slavery
from their midst, for the institution is merely
local, and slaves can be held as property only
where they are made such by local authority.


II ID admitted both by Douglas and bis re-
viewer, that there is q serious difference of
opinion in the ranks of the Democratic party,
upon this question Of slavery in the Territories,
and II is one that can neither be evaded nor
passed over In silence by the next Democratic
National Convention.