Indiana State Guard, Volume 1, Number 38, Indianapolis, Marion County, 13 October 1860 — Page 1

ID

n TTT A H

VOL 1

THE OLD LINE GUARD. IS PUllMWHKI) ih'tiI-WEBKIjT AT I Fl I AKAl'OLIS, I A I I A i A, UY ELDEU ic HAKKIVKSS. TEX. 3VE , ,.,,1.1 alter lite Presidential Flection. la advance, in all cases. $1.00, Advertisements inserted at the usual rales. Douglas' Arguments Fairly Met and Kefuted. From the Paducah (Ky.) Herald. THE TKUK CIIABACTEB OF DOUGLAS1SM. The factious arid temporary importance which the extraordinary aspect of the present canvass attaches tO tilti 0)1UIU11S Ot JUU'Ui UUJJIUS, ihjv " ."' ....n:.. .,i,l. ,ir.. in urn to a ' oarticular article 01 iaim :.. i ..... ..-iMiiia fvciwi wini'ii lias nut, t-l, ". : 1 . . - i I. 1 ,t n-i v.. I w.in b

sullieientiv dissected. In the controversy between j quently to the Illinois canvass, Judge Douglas visited the friends and opponents of that gentleman, the pub- ew Orleans, and there made a speech, from w hich, he discussions have generally been directed to tliej as reported in the Delta, we make the following exquestion concerning tiio orthodoxy of the doctrine of tract: Squatter Sovereignty," and m the eagerness ot ex- Tlle Demo(..rat;c. party says that Congress has no posing t;iis heresy, auo:hcr and far more pernicious -gl,t t0 establish or to prohibit slavery. Ve say that aposiaey from the Dciuoeiatiu faith and the true prin-, (he territories should be open to the citizens of the ciples of government, with which Judge Dougias is j United States to go there with i heir property, and jusdy chargeable, has been heretofore sullered to pass j gul,jcct at,ku l0 the laws, when they arrive there. unnoticed. , '' I But. an objection is raised by some of our Southern The advocacy of Squatter Sovereignty is not the frit.lulS) alK, i mo been a.-ked here and at home, what greatest otfence of the Senator from Illinois; nor is j mL.am by the doctrine of popular sovereignty in the ft the unpardonable sin which lirst lost him forever j territories, and whether we abide by the Died Scott the commence of the South. To argue, as that gen- j0.L.;,;on. a a discussion with my opponent, Mr.

tlcinan attempted to do m his speech in the senate,, jmeoln, uL Freepon, Illinois, the question was put to that we ought to torgive in him what we had ovcr-f me wjletlier, in the event that the people or Ltgisialooked in Cass, and mat his oneiidiiig faith in Squat-; ture ot a Territory were hostile to slavery, there was ter Sovereignty had been long and consistently pro-; anv lawful means by which slavery could be excluded, iessed by him at times wnen tue South sad trusted j jj yes, and proceeded to state the means. 1 Willi him, is simply an evasion of the issue..'..: The grand slale tuwu hereto you. The Democracy of Illinois, j ; anU capital charge which . we ot the South unng ;u ti,e (i,. place, accepts tho decision of the Supreme j against him, is not a difference of opinion with us in j (j0lll.t 0f the United States in the case of Died Scott,) regard to our rights, but his matured and deliberate M au auihoritative interpretation of the Constitution.! proclamation of a doctrine which denies to us the en- ju acL.ordauce with that decision, we hold that slaves j joynieiit of rights which he concedes us to possess ; it al.c property, and hence on an equality with all other j is" not the simple denial which, however erroneous k;ujd o1 property, and the owner of a slave has the j and unjust, might be sincere ot our right to take our ; gam(J to move into a Territory and carry his, slaves to the Territories, but the bold aud reckless as-. slave pioperty with him, as the owner of any other j sertion, that when we have taken them there, the Ter-; p10pery iias to go there and carry his property. Allj ritonal Legislature may lawfully refuse to us the pro- i cillZens of the Lniled States, no matter whether they j

tection which, from its nature, Government is bound t.oluu lrolu tiu jr0nh or the South, from a free Slate to furnish to every right of property which it recogni- 01. a siavu State, can enter a Territory with their zes. It is not the advocacy of a narrow and compar-; pr0pC.rty 0n an equal footing. atively harmless error as to the extent of our just de-j "But 1 apprehend .when you arrive there with your mauds of the supreme power, but the promulgation ot i property you are subject to the local law of the Tera theory which completely abolishes the obligation ot , ,-itory. How can your slave property be protected the supreme power to comply with our demands, how-j Wltll0ut joca iawi xhe Constitudou gives you a ever just. right to go into a Territory and carry your slave Tins doctrine is altogether distinct from Squatter , p10perty with you; but it does not punish any man Sovereignty. According to that theory heretical ar- l01. waling your slave, when you get there. It does suredly, hut almost innocent when compared with the : not pUmijU a man lor stealing any other property when broader position of Douglas the right to determine i y0U get there. Congress never yet passed a law 10 the relative status and the respective rights ot every puuisu crime or protect pioperty in any organized

nersou ill the 3 Territory, is vested in the X erritorial j f . . . , . i.i i . . v..: Legislature, but the status auu me riguts uem uu determined, the obligation of the Government to protect aud enforce tliemis not denied. The error cousists simply in assuming that Congress can conici uie ,

power to prohibit the existence ot slavery in uie j.ci- fu, subjec(s of legislation, subject only to the foustirttory, and thus dissolve and destroy the relation be-; tutkm of tha Umted States. II ence, whatever juristween the master aud his slave. :. ' ' . . diction the Legislature possesses over other property, The theory which was avowed by Douglas '"s : it has over slave property no more, no less. Let me Freeport Speech and it was that theorpy Inch ollend- ask as Southern men, can you hold slaves anyed tlie South, and by that he must be judged avoid-; unlugs protectud hy tue iocai lawy AVould not ed that error, and is therefore not Squatter Sovereign-1 iuactiou- ot- tie iocai Legislature, its refusal to proty at all. But in avoiding that error, he tell into one : viUe ft s)ave codUj m tQ pUuisn otlienses against that infinitely more pernicious. The doctrine which he j ies of property, exclude slavery just as effectually then avowed was altogether new. Nothing equiva- ag a Constitutional prohibition ? Would it not have lent, or similar, or analagous, has ever been inculcated that effcct ; Louisiana and in every othr State ? in any government, eyeu. the most desiioiic, much less r 0 one wiu d iu . jlien, let me ask you, it the

in any claiming to be free, least ot an in o us. it was lu ot- a territory refuse to pass a slave code, how dangerous as it was new. It was nothing ess than au an you in? ,0 niake them do it ? When you give assertion that a government may lawfully reluse to them p0wer to iegiSate on ad rightful subjects of legcomply with its admitted tluty. It completely anuihi-, islation! jt becomes a question for them to decide, aud lates the obligations which rest upon the legislative nQt me uower. It makes the rhAit and all the rights of , . , . . powui. ...xl iims o ... fmm! " If the local Legislature imposes a tax on horses, "Cl7S.f pother kind V property! you may think it a social luuijav-i- u. v wj v. i l,n,ljliin lint linw arA vnll irnimr tn 111' hi it i1 .Inst, so

Xliuiy uuun r - , , tlw. m. iitiai-v am iriesnnnsihlH Will Ot the rulers. fill 'x--.. 1! X ! . , V..X. ,,.nn 4-n OAHQI'n nc reeiprocuy oi ouu-auou , ment and the citizens is altogether denied. A bi each of trust at once the most undeniable in Ins cl mracter, and the most destructive in its consequence "de-, clared to be law ul; a dorel.ct.on ot that du ty vv ch the sanction ot all other duties is asserted tob perfectlv lustifiable antl proner: and tlie saereaand awtul et . suit ice do i .- ,.TOvewiii.-ut ...ui, i.u.i u. . 6 ----a nizes. iiiw is tne very enti a m puipo,e u tation. 'The extent ot the rights ot each citizen be prescribed by the supreme power, biu once p tscribed the obligation to secure and enforce theiu i istantly arises, ihe duty is at once undeniable etcrnal and indestructible, lor any government to deprive a citizen ot life while it allows him the uuforfeited right to live, is murder; to take fiom him his liberty while it concedes to him the unforfeited right to be free, is tyranny; to destroy his property while it admits that he has ail unforfeited right to that property, is roTjbery ; and to stiller any of those things to be done with its concurrence or consent, differs fiom murder, tyranny, or robbery, only as the omission of a duty differs from tlie commission of a crime. Herein lies the fallacy and the heresy of Judge Douglas' doctrine. He asserts, if we do not misunderstand him, not only that government may lawfully refrain fiom exercising its powers tor tlie purpose of protecting lights which it recognizes, antl which it is conceded it cannot annihilate, but that it may by "unfriendly legislation" lawfully pervert the power to protect into a power to destroy. That we do not misunderstand him is evident from his own words. The following is his own enunciation of the doctrine as contained in the Freeport speech: "The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoin is, can tlie iconic of a Territory in any lawful way, a-'aiust tlie wishes of any citizen of the United StaWexclude slavery from their bmiu prior to the forraition of a Stale Constitution? I answer emphaticallv, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred ;,..' f. ;,i Hilling ilm, !n mv nnininn the oeoole of a Territoiv can. by lawful means, ex - ..i,.i.. .invDr. tmm ii.ui,.' Kmii. nn-nr tn 1 1. formation k. fvm.i,;, ri".,ti..;OJi;,. .1.1 Mr.!

weru.1.TUi. r, u:.., '7 ', :.T" :.. had better travel with your liquors. Hence, if the !

I, not a lenateu, to t ie uovern.uen it ia had Lehlmii has the same right over slave prop-exe.-eised, or withheld or perverted, as to 1 othcr species of propertywlat ' nt the caprice, ortl.e interests, or the yengetul ma - , you t0 'n if that equall y V But if

: ot those wuo wie.u tne u e...u.,m. - ,:" if, t you do complain, how are you going to help it? And ! tibted maxim, a funda.iiental axiom in pocstliat mc ' d)at if yu 0pse this just doctrine,

Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over I ernineniS, and to trace out all the legitimate ami inand over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska' fVitable results, would be sickening ; anarchy would i.:h i. ,.,:..:i ,il T.o,.. :.. ntii i.-.s be legalized: partial legiation would be justice: all

and ISiG, and he has no excuse for pretending to be; in doubt as to my position on that question. It mat-. ters not what way the Supreme Comt may hereafter dcitle ai to the abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a .territory under the Constitution, the jieople have the lawful means to introduce or exclude it as they please, lor the reason that !.hr,.n-i.inintii'it a il.iv or an hour anvwhere. un - less it'is supixirted by lix-al jiolicc regula'.ions. Right,! r;,f 1 .. Tiir ncWce. rrmiltinn ran only lie established

by tlie local Legislature, and if the people are oposed is his. Led away by his sK-cious arguments in favor j and by the platform rejiorted by a majority of the , We repeat that the issue is plaiu, and he whoniisapU slavery they "will elect representatives to that body j of squatter sovereignty, aud deceived by his dexter-j States at Charleston, and adopted by the Convention prebends it in the present contest does so intentional.:n"hr nnfrinillv leinjation fffertnallv r-revent' ous attempt to make "it appear that squatter sover-1 at Baltimore which nominated Mr. Breckinritlire for ly and wiih his eyes oien. The decision of the court

the introduction of it into their midst. If, on the con-

THE CONSTITUT ION , THE

INDIANATH)LI trary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its1 extension. Hence, no matter what, the' decision ot the Supreme Court may be on that abstracUpicstion, still the right of the people to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska btll.'-l hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point." It is obvious that the statement that the people may exclude slavery from their limits is wholly argumentative. It is not asserted that they niay do so directly, by declaring that, slavery shall not exist ; but that they may do so in effect, by refusing to protect the rights of the slaveholder. They may exclude slavery "tor the reason " that police regulations are necessary to the enjoyment ot that property, as 01 ait outers, aim they may refuse to create the police regulations. The "abstract question" as to the existence of the right is distinctly referred to the .'Supreme Court, but the power to deny protection, even if the right exists, is claimed for the Territorial Legislature. It is not pretended that the, right can be annihilated by the Territorial Legislature, for if it exists at all, it exists " under the Constitution," which cannot be controverted, but the right is to be rendered valueless, inoperative, nugatory, by withholding Governmental sanction. The right may continue to exist, but it cauuot be enforced. Tins is a fair statement of the theory. That it is so, abundantly appears from Judge Douglas' own comnii'iiuii uiuii 1110 uuvuim.. .iiunmu ..w--I.I., .l,i..f ....... S;nm mmil iu aiihsl. territory. " Congress never yet passed a criminal code for any organized Territory. It has simply organized the Territory and established a Legislature, that Legisiatm.e be- vegt(J(1 wilu illative power over all right-"-.y "7 . " - x . . ,.,;,i, it is with regard to traflie in liquors. It ou are deal-! ing in liquors, you have the same right to take 3-our 1 t. -tn,.v tUnt . anvUn,rv Bifi(1 ilfla lntap. i property. You may pass through a I I V ) P e Aght of propert-undt-r the Consfi.uJ I 1 i gu 11 and giould ap , . . ..... , ... ., it- attempt to exemi.t ly t0 every otller kind of property, you will U of tho , 0f the Biack lpubliuaus and Abolitionists, J ,o q( a TL,n.t01.v a,.e ; fav01. of q o ) k , md ' J . , ' ' putucmiouo u. The idea is here amplified anil elaborated, but it is not changed. The duct ine of the Died Scott decision is explicitly aceepied as authoritative and correct, The right of a slaveholder to go into the Territory with his slave is conceded, 'ihe absence ot power iu Congress to destroy the right of the master in his slave in the Territory is also admitted tor that is uotoiiously the doctrine ot the Dred Scott case, which he accepts and he does not pretend, which would indeed be a transparent absurdity, that the Territorial Legislature po.susM:s a greater power than Congress, "Tue Constitution gives you the right," he says, "to go into a Territory, and cany your slave property with you ; " the right cannot be destroyed, because the Constitution cannot be controlled; but the light may be rendered worthless, because the Constitution docs not punish the mau who iufringes it. It the Govj eminent will not protect your rights, he says, " how are you going to help it V " " lou cannot compel them to nuke the laws to protect. This is the whole theory of the Illinois Senator, as expounded by himself. Iu its bald and naked enormity it amounts simP.v to this Mat Uocernmtnt may laujully ttjuse to do " .'" The statement ot the proposition is its retutauou. Ihe monstrous falsity cannot be exaggerated ' b). av hyperbole cannot be heightened by y any colaboration. j state Gov- ' ohii'' caunot be made plainer by any c To apply the principle to our Federal aud S ' pouuc-ai ligaments i..cu m Government and to his fellows nd (he citizen to his would be dissolved ; aud our right would be less secure, valid, valuable, than if we lived uuder a despotism for the rights that desjiotism acknow ledges it protects. j How is it then, if this is Judge Douglas' doctrine, that he finds supporters in Kentucky ? The answer, ! we think, is olain. For our own liart, we do not believe that his supporters, iu this State, at least, really I believe this doctrine. Many are not aware, and the : remainder will iirobablv not admit, that the doctrine : j eignty is the real issue, they have been deluded into

i T.ne ivifLine law nanueu to orevaii in tue xerriiui v, uu

slaves from the same rules 1

UNION, AND THE E Q U A

I D , "SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13, 18(0.

xl. .1.,....:..... ...Iit..li tlw.v f-itmrk, ri.allv en-

dorse 'lt bn -iHting howihnt an intelligent ized by an act of Con is provision and tempoand enli-ditened people should ever seem to count-; rary. and dunng its existence : aU c uen .of the Urn

m nrin,.inl,.S which their minds and consciences bitrary master of the people, instead of being, as of . T.X .. ' , i i " i ....L ' , ,..i.i ..i w;1

.servant, " instituted," as our glorious State Constitu- j The principle so asserted, adopted and approved by tion truthfiiBv declares "for their peace, safety, hap- the Jacksonian Democracy in 1834 is utterly at vapiness, security, and the protection of properly." Let; riance with that other doctrine that the people ot a them, for their own sake, for the sake of those great j Territory, during its Territorial existence, have the truths in which we are all agreed, for the sake of those. ! right and may lawfully exclude or effectually prevent eternal principles which we all must venerate and the introduction of slave property into the territory love, for the sake of those noble instil utions which are i by unfriendly legislation enacted by the Territorial our common inheritance, and the perpetuation of j Legislature, and when such legislation lias been passed, which miwt be the object of all parties, pause long ; that Congress has no power to intervene for the purantl ponder well before they range themselves under j pose of protection, because of a qualified or absolute a banner which bears inscribed upon it an arrogant ; sovereignly in the people in the Territory, and insolent disavowal and renunciation of all the au-1

thorily and all the rights of the people. Let them at loasl, 'if they are determined to cast their suffrages for Senator Douglas, repudiate the indefensible and monstrous doctrines of which lie is the inventor and the advocate. Let it not, be told that there is any party, however small, within the limits of the Commonwealth, of whom it may be said that they receive and profess '' the fatal principle that the sacred tru-ts of Governnient mav be lawfully ubitndoned or betrayed.' SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY Condemned hy General Jackson and a Democratic -: Convention. - The power of Congress to- protect Property in the Territories acknowledged and exer-1 cis'ed. The Douglas doctrine of Territorial Sovereignty and unfriendly Legislation utterly repudiated. AVe ask attention to the following facts taken from the records of Congress during the session of 1834. Prior to tiie meeting of Congress at the December session, 1833, the Legislature of Florida, which was men turner a luinmuai viuiniutut,H(iu iiaftu uia ed imuusiiiLf au uriiust and discriminatini' tax upon s! owned in that Territory by - non-residents. Several citizens of Virginia, injuriously affected by these Territorial laws, presented a petition to the Congress of the United Slates for relief. That memorial was re-j ferred to the Committee on Territories, antl on the 1 1 tli of Fcbiuary, 1834, that Committee made the following report, which we commend to the calm and dispassionate consideration of every advocate of the doctrine of popular sovereignty in the Territories: " The. memorialists allege that they are the owners of a number of slaves, removed several years ago from Virginia to the Territory ot Florida ; that the Legislature of said Territory has imposed a tax of ten dollars a head on all the slaves of non-residents which shall be hired out, without reference to the amount f 'or which said slaves may have been hired; that an ex post facco operation was given to this enactment by applying it lo slaves hired out several weeks before the passage of the law, and that the same, or perhaps another law, subjects any non-resident's slaves that may be sold in the Territory to a further taxation of fifteen dollars each. They, thei elore, ask Congress for relief. "The Committee are satisfied that the memorialists are entitled to relief. It is certainly against the policy of the United States, as well as the dictates of common justice to allow any Territorial Legislature to tax the properly of non-residents higher than the same property of residents. "The provisionally authority appointed under the act ot the 22d of February, 1S19, hating passed an ordinance providing for the naturalization of inhabitants of Florida, ami the City Council of St. Augustine having imposed by ordinance certain taxes upon the inhabitants, an act of Congress was passed on the 7th of May, 1822, repealing both ordinances anil making their execution penal. See 7th vol. Laws U. S., page 09, chap. 85. " The Committee think that Congress should always proiect the pioperty of the citizens of the United States when subjected to the opcrationsot uniust legis lation by. Territorial governments. In the case above referred to, that principle of protection is asserted antl maintained in practice. The same principle requires the same practice now. And lor that purpose the Committee herewith report a bill." The bill so reported was enacted into a law by Congress, and was approved by General Jackson on the 30th of June, 1834. The law is as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That all such acts, or parts of acts, passed by the Legislative Council of the Territory ot Florida as may impose a higher or greater tax on the slaves or other property of non-resident citizens than is imposed on the slaves or property of lesident citizens, be, and the same are hereby repealed and declared null and void. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That if' any person shall attempt to enforce any of the acts passed by tlie Le-islitive Council of the Territory of h iorida, as aforesaid, by demanding or receiving any lax, imposition or assessment authorized or prescribed thereby, such person shall, oil conviction thereof, be punished by fine not exceeding two hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or either or both of said punishments." When this law was under discussion in the House of Representatives, not a single voice was raised in favor of the Territorial laws, or denying the power, the right, and the duty ot Congress to repeal them, for the purpose of protecting the propel ty of citizens in the Territories. The doctrine that the people of the Territoiy, acting through their Territorial Legislature, had the power to pass such laws by virtue of inherent sovereignty was not then thought of. On the contrary, ever- member of the House who participated in the debate Mr. Williams, Mr. White, and Mr. Fillmore all concurred in denouncing those Territorial laws as unjust, objectionable, and as passed without right They say, in fo many words, "the Legislative Council had no right to pass such a law." Congress did not hesitate to repeal the obnoxious enact-

ments, antl, in repeating, imposed a penalty ot nne ; """iu .iv ciw ' and imprisonment upon anv person who should attempt ! therefore, tor the proof that the Bell party, or any to cany out the repealed laws. They treated the ! other party except the National Democracy, staifo ,.t.f .1... 'r.,..io.;!,i T.iwlad.io wiii.'nn ...nr.. Mn. upon the irreat Democratic doctrines ot theday. Me

sideraiion, and regarded them as entitled to no higher; suuuut me question, aim e ca.v.u. mm t.respect than the ordinances of municipal corporations, did attention. For what purpose was this done? Clearly to protect j -The South cannot support Mr. Bell; thev have no the property of the citizens in the Territories against 1 guarantee that he is with them; they have that guarthe unjust and unfriendly legislation of the people of! antee fiom Mr. Breckinridge. Ihe Northcrn.opposithe Territory. The principle asserted bv those who ! tiouto the Democracy; that is, those who wish to nave advocated, enacted anil approved this law, is the en-! their opposition count, will support Lnico.n. Many tire subordination of Territorial laws to the power ; half-and-half men will withhold their support from and authority of Congress acting within its Territorial Bell and Everett, who would iiatuialiy incline to the limits. A State Legislature, iu the absence of con-: latter gentleman, on' aecount ot the weakness of the

stituiional prohibition in the State Constitution, may ; discriminate between different kinds of property and fix the tax bv eat h: Tt mav exenmt ceriaiu kinds of propert v from all taxation, and oblige the other kinds t0 pay an increased tax. But this cannot be done by a Territorial Leihslature because the ljeople of a Ter -

ritory are not sovereign; because a Territory is in! 1" New loit it lias not a representative man iu a state ol pupilage, i subject to the General Govern- the whole State. The leaders aie all distinguished, il ment, and is especially under the supervision of Con- for auy thing, for dullness, want of nerve, and tor m,,lss activity. They are not men who ever have, or ever But this law establishes as a fact that a Democratic could stand alone iu any contest. Such men (some Congress intervened for the purpose of protecting- of whpui are honest) have little to do but to look, qniproperty in a Territory against the unfriendly legisla- etly on ami let .uch sharpers and unscrupulous tiuktion of the Territory, "and that intervention was ap-; ers as Richmond, Cagger, & Co. run their new party proved by Andrew Jackson. The Report of the into the ground, which they will do in less than six Committee above cited, which id 1834 met the unani-' weeks from the date of their soK-alled union. They

nious aimroval of the Democratic President and the Denioeraiic party in Congress, asserts the same principles which are recognized uy the Minrcme court ot the United States, bv the resolutions of the Senate, President, viz.

L I T Y 0 F T II E S T A T E S !

"1st. That t ho Government of a Territory organted btates have an e.p.a. rig.u to se.e .. p- -ipersons and property in the lerittor.es at ever else its constitutional authority extends. The Issue and the Parties. At no time in the history of the slavery question has it presented an issue so plain to the understanding as in the present campaign. In 184N, the free-soil movement at the North staggered some of the soundest political minds, from the tact of its being a new question lor the fii'st time thrown into a Presidential canvass. In 18&2, the Democracy and the country aeied moie understanding!-, anil so much so, that, in tact, both political parties' planted themselves upon the Compromise Measures of 1860. These Compromise Measures, it will be recollected, left the slavery question in the Territories just where the subsequent . .i I.V..1 1 l..t't it n-itl. decision of the Federal Supreme Court left it w the States to be iormcU out of saiu .territories , out the Republican party arose out of hostility to that doctrine, and it was not supposed by any Democrat that this party would ever acquiesce in any settlement of the question except the old dogma ot Congressional intervention; but it was rational lo expect that all who were not identified with the prmeiiiies and policy of that party, would, if honest, and it they had the u . . n i, ti.. iuwnn

slaves!"'"" """-o- 1 t . . -

i iip....ii us a nwiiHv. ine inter urctauuii iinuii iu iuc Constitution by the supreme i.uuri, Ihis interpre tation, in a labored opinion written by Chief Justice Taney, has left the question so plain that " he who runs may read it." It is a decision directly upon the point, for the very purpose of settling the controversy torever; at least with the government, ami all who plant themselves upon the side of its maintenance, and think it worthy of perpetuation. Thus the issue in the present contest is not only a plain one, but it is for or against a question settled by the highest tribunal known to the Constitution a question of Jaw settled by the department of the government lor tlie settlement of ad legal or constitutional questions, aud from which, constitutionally, there is no appeal. The only appeal from it, is to arms, which is the last appeal in last emergencies. Having thus staled the case, and, as we believe, candidly and truthfully, wu how pioceed to a consideration of the necessary parties to such an issue. It wid.at once be conceded that the Kepublicau party, as a pari', is a legitimate and necessary one in combatting this" issue, .between it and the government there is a deadly conllict upon -this question; it is, therefore, a legitimate and proper party, though a revolutionary one, in the held, to oppose the National Democracy, or Breckinridge organization, which stands upon the decision of the Courts on the question and makes that the bulwark of its platlbim. The only difference between the Northern Douglas party (lor it is a Northern idea, and has no foothold in tho South,) anil this great Kepublicau revolutionary organization, is in tne modus operandi the maimer ot effecting the same thing, i. e., the revolutionary opposition to tlie decision ot the federal judiciary. The Douglas party cla:m that the question of property in slaves in the TerritoricSj is a pioper subject ot. Territorial legislation, and the Kepublicans that it is a subject of Congressional legislation, which is, practically, no difference at all. so tar as it is concerned. Tney, therefore, both being northern parties, tor the purpose of opposing the National Democracy, ha e no cause lor separate organizations. Their oiganizations can be blended for the purpose of the present contest harmoniously. They constituted one party in the House of Kepreseiuatives, and now, in all sincerity, we ask, should they weaken themselves by a separation in the Presidential contest ? We think parties thus identified will not thus divide their strength; that all the maneuvering for union in New York and othcr States is lo gain acquisitions to be cast in common for Lincoln, iivery day confirms this impression. We have shown that the necessity for a separate organization on principle does not exist. These two organizations, then, kept ill tlie held, are for some hidden purpose, aud must culminate in one and the same object. If jeitlier Douglas or Lincoln should be triumphant, it is but a small surrender lor either party to adopt the policy ol the other, lor it matters little to them whether Congiess (the creator) or the Territorial legislatuie (the creature) shall bo the motive power iu excluding the South with their property from the Territories. The Bell and Everett parly stand iu neaily the same category. Its organisation, il the party is honest, and is to be believed, is u.-ivess; it can effect nothingbut weakness to the principles it professes to maintain. It it really stands upon the enforcement ot the laws and the maintenance of the Constitution, its organization stands m the way of carrying out these principles, for every vote it gets it takes lrom an organization older than itself, more legitimate, and more emphatically endorsing these great principles, and quite as capable and honest. The National .Democracy is a parly baptized in these principles. It stands where Mr. Bell does not stand squarely upon the Di ed Scott decision. This is now the laud-mark of nationality in parties, and we respectluily ask lor one woid or sentiment ot Mr. Bell giving the American people the insurance ot his sympathy with this decision. To say that he stands bv the laws ami the Constitution is entirely too vague Lincoln would say the same, and even Douglas party at the North. Mr. Lverett was placed uu the ticket to catch this class ot halt-and-halis, men 1'ke himself, of little courage; their timidity will not permit them to support the party in its weakness. 1 he party has the wrong matenai m lU candidates to head, , create, or lead a political revolution. desire to play the same trick with the friends ot Breckinridge and Laue; whether they will succeed remains to oe seen, rnnne oi our menus are restless; ; we advise them fo be cautious. is law or it is not law; it is to be obeyed or not olwed

: l.l ..... I..;t..l. l.i i-. .titiii.. tluu fur W A l-llll.

There is no halfway work altottt it. Douglas' treachery is, therefore,a plain, open rebellion; stripped of its flimsy disguise, and held up to the understanding, it marks him as one of the most treacherous demagogues in tlie annals of polities. There is no possible side of . 1. 1 ........ niLlinn li n Kicnt fit C.mA ndMlnl Cif 11 Ifl Hft-.

litical career, advocated. He first advocated the Missouri Compromise, then stood as the godfather of its repeal. He went farther; upon the admission of California he introduced a resolution to tlie effect that out of such Territory north of 3ti 30, slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, should never exist in the State. A man who has went so far as to advocate Congressional intervention in a sovereign State surely need not hesitate to blend his organization with a party which only claims it in Territories. Douglasism w bosh trash. New York Day-Book. Falsifying History, ' It is a sad feature of tlie times to see politicians who . have more than local reputation, anil to fan the flame of local passion, deliberately falsify history. Such is t the last miserable partizan work which William L. Dayton, of New Jersey, lias been doing in New York. He" tries to make it out that for forty years the right of Congress to prohibit slavery in the Territories was never disputed! He says: " In fact, the act of 1804, signed by Mr. Jefferson, excluded from the Territory oi Louisiana all slaves imported since the 1st, of May of that y. iu. :i!n! the same act excluded from the Territory all slaves whatever, unless ownetl by an actual settler who was himself .a citizen of the United States." Now, Mr. Dayton knows that this 1801 exclusion provision related expressly to the foreign .-lave trade, and is in harmony with other acts designed to suppress the importation of slaves into the Territories; and tlie attempt to twist this species of legislation into a justification of the modern Republican anarchial doctrines is a piece of disgraceful parlizanship, worthy only the small anti-slavery politicians running about here in Massachusetts. Thus, this unscrupulous Kepublicau trickster, Dayton, insults the common intelligence by the statement that for forty years, the right of Congress to prohibit slavery in the Territories was never disputed ! Then, he says, new views were advanced. But hear him : " As the country advanced antl as population increased asthe North gathered strength and tlie South felt its weakness new views were presented." What impudence ! Let the truth be staled and we get it from no less, a person than James Madison. He said, in a most able letter, dated 19th November, 1820: " Congress did not regard the interdict of slavery among the useful regulations contemplated by the Constitution, since in none of the Territorial Governments created by them is such an interdict found." This interdict is not found in the Territorial Government created by Congress for Tennessee in 1790; for Mississippi in 1798 ; for Louisiana in 1804; for Missouri in 1812; for Alabama in 1817; for Kansas ; in 1819. Nor did Congress from 1 7'JO to 1820 assume to negative the Territorial acts of the Indiana and Illinois territories providing for the protection of slavery in those Territories directly contrary to the ordinance of 1787 passed by the old Congress! And to cap the climax, the fugitive slave law of 1793 protects the "ri"ht of the slaveowner in the pioperty in the labor of his slave iu either of the Territories on the Northwest or South of the river Ohio. There is an array of facts covering the forty years Dayton so wantonly falsifies ! Whatpolitical rascality to so pervert history for the abominable purpose of banding the North into a suicitlal war on the South. Such a miserable falsifier of hiotory i just the partizan who might be expected to calumniate Ex-President Pierce antl Uuchanan and John C. Breckinridge. Boston Tost. Who is Eesponsible for It? The Concord (N.TI ) Standard, a Democratic paper, reviews the causes of tho disruption of the Democratic party, and the responsibilities connected with its defeat and overthrow, and discourses thus: No candid man can deny that Stephen A. Douglas and his adherents are alone responsible for the disruption of the Democratic party, and for all the disasters which will follow that event. If defeat shall be one of those disasters, Douglas and his adherents are alone responsible for it. Douglas is the leader and the pioneer in this nefarious work of demoralizing aud destroying the Democratic party. lie began his mischief in misrepresenting and misinterpreting the Cincinnati platform. That platform declares that when a Territory has a sufficient number of people to justify its admission into the Union as a sovereign State, they shall have the power "lo form a Constitution with or without domestic slavery," antl be admitted into the Union on terms of perfect equality with the other States. The true construction of this resolution is plain and obvious. It clearly implies that the people of a Territory were to take no action with regard to the institution of slavery until there was a population sufficient in the Territory to justify its admission into the Union, and, in that event, and when they frame a Constitution with the view of admission, they could then abolish, or establish, or continue slavery, as they saw fit. This is the true reatliut; of the Cincinnati platform, and the true idea of Poi'ULAit Sovereignty such as every Territory has enjoyed, and will continue to enjoy. But Douglas was not satisfied with this construction of the-Cincinnati platform. It did not favor his ambitious designs. He wanted the sectional support of the North, and he thought he could obtain it only by making one tremendous stride over the Abolition sentiment of the North. Ib nee he put a new construction upon the Cincinnati platform. He construed it to mean that the residents of a Territory, at any time, and hoaerer f:w iii number, might legislate on slavery, and abolish it if they pleased. And this doctrine, in its consequences and results, is more mischievous than the doctrine of the Wilniot Proviso, held by the Black Republicans. Douglas substantially holds, that after a Territory is once organized, a score ot Alol:tionists under the jiatronage of the New England Aid Societies, may go into it, and vote slavery out, and pass severe penalties against its introduction, thus effectually excluding the people of the South, who have an equal right with the North in the enjoyment of the public domain. - Who Has the Best Chances ? Keep it before the people, that if the election goes into the House of Representatives, fourteen States arc committed to lireckinritlge, while Bell and .Douglas combined have tiro only three other States being divided and the remainder for Lincoln ! Keep it before the people, tliat it the election of President goes to tlie Senate, old Joe Lane has 87 votes, Hamlin 25. Johnson 2. and Everett 2 Lane having a clear majority over all the others combined. Keep it before the people, that the only safe plan of beating the Black Republican. is tor all desiring such a result to unite upon Breckinridge and Lane, the true Union candidates ! Keep it lx fbre the people, that no sane man in America believes that Douglas has the ghost of a chance to tarry a single Southern State, while his l.rospects ae nearly, if not quite, as gloomy in the North! . Keep it before the people, tliat nolwdy but a luna tic would believe that John Bell can carry ai. Northern Siate in tlie Electoral Colleges or tlx-Hon-, unless he sells out to the AboIiKonisi, and tliat be has no reliable chance of urcess any wher I Keep it before the people, that 15 reck and Lake are the oidr himes that can win the four-mile race on the Union courw, a?aint the Republican team 1