Newspaper Page Text
A . a. GAULDING & CO.
SERIES, YOL
" THURSDAY. SEPTEMBER 29 1859
ter*!
..SOFSUBSCRIPTION
Tt^Y’^-p per annum in advance, $6 00
nitlT r ,V, v per “ in advance, 4 00
Jj.ffEO 11 -' ’ *7, “ in advance, 2 00
if na ; d witliin six months, 2 50
if paid within twelve months....... 3 00
Intercepted Correspondence
pU I fish to-day, several letters addressed
‘committee of the Opposition party, ap-
. - j.-.., .vnmocp nf mnfprrinir wifli fliA
'iiitetl for the purpose of conferring with the
0 f Democracy in various parts of the
fL_-sending documents, &c., &c. There
^ e hard licks in these letters, which our
^ en ts will have to get along with as well
f . ? ^ e v can- ^en that make hard beds, must
* ’ t0 ]j e hard. If our opponents had not
from fVinir
jnlicited correspondence from their friends,
r woU jd never have seen these letters in
columns. But as long as they solicit such
Mters. if tiie - v ^ ut in tllC wron « box > the >’ ma y
apect us to take a<ivantage of them, by giv
^ them publication. __
We mk<- pleasure in laying before our
jgrfeft tin' following Card. It comes from a
$r5f faithful and long tried Democrat. We
. in the field for the campaign, and with the
operation of such men as Dr. Phillips, our
aose will certainly prevail.
ArniTon’s Office, W. A. R. R., |
~ ' '859. j
Septemi>er, 21st, 1859
OL. A- A. Gaildi.vg.—Dear Sir: Going
„ Ter to Aiken lias, doubtless, improved your
1 and efficiency as a Democratic leader :
w( j j thank you for the promptness with
which you have got up, iu pamphlet form, the
material I sent you ; as I shall now have time
t„ olace a copy in the hands of the voters in
North-East Georgia, liefove they go to the
iH s i vvould he glad if every man in Geor
im could read the charges that have been
made against Gov. Brown and Dr. Lewis, and
tiieir refutation ; and would gladly send a few
hundred copies of any paper the Opposition
mav publish, embracing those charges, to the
N E. Mountain Counties—they would do
mure good for the Democratic counties, than
Col. Akin’s speeches will do harm. Keep the
ty;i up for a few days, and, if others will aid
m,.. «c «ill have 5 or 10,000 more copies
struck oti. This ha contest notbetween War
ren Akin and .los. K. Brown, but a battle be
tween Oeinocraey and tomething made up of so
many heterogeneous elements, that I am not
able to characterize it properly.
Yours, &c.. GEO. D. PHILLIPS.
Col. Wright at the Atheuieum.
We happened, accidentally or otherwise,
to le at the Athenamm, on Tuesday evening
last. It was the third appearance of Col.
W. F. IVright, on the Atlanta boards, this
season. The Colonel, we think, is evidently
improving. He went into a philosophical, or
rather legal, disquisition iipou the three great
absolute rights of man in a state of nature—
"jersonal liberty, personal security, and (the
right of) private property”—the most sacred
of which, according to the speaker, was that
of "private property.” That may be Mr.
Hack stone's notion, but we, of this day and
rnifry. rather think that the two former
tight:' :'re tar the ‘‘most sacred.”
The Colonel labored,to show that the “Cin-
dnnatti Platform” violated the rights of “pri
vate property”—how, or in what respect, we
ould not exac tly understand. It may be our
fault, or it may be the speaker’s, but we real-
thought the Col. was rather muddy on this
point; and we could not but think, that the
Col. was “giving wing” to his imagination,
when he asserted, more than once, that it was
under and by virtue of the operation of the
"Cincinnati Platform,” that the South had
stall territory—that by it we had even lost
California. He certainly forgot that Califor
nia was admitted into the Union in the year
mr Lord, one thousand eight hundred and
tifty—and that the “Cincinnati Platform” was
not adopted until the year 1850. We may be
mistaken in our chronology, but think we are
right. How, then, could the “Cincinnati
Platform” have lost California to the South ?
The Col. evidently fell into another error,
when he asserted that under Gov. Johnson’s
wiministratiioi, seven thousand dollars more
pet month, u us paid into the Treasury by the
ritate Road, than under Gov. Brown’s admin
istration. We --appose that, following the
lead of Col. Akin and Dr. Miller, what he
meant to say was that seven thousand dollars
more per month, was made. But then the
Col. ought to be more particular, when he
<*ae» down to matters of fact. We don’t be-
eve that he would wilfully make a mis
statement, but, then, a public speaker and a
andidate for Congress, going about the coun
ty to enlighten the people on*“matters of
Mate,” ought to be “well posted,” and stick
to the record.
We will not follow the Colonel further, in
speech of Tuesday night. We don’t think
that he done .any great damage, either to tire
democratic party in general, or to his oppo
nent in particular. If Gartrell don’t beat
"right, in Fulton county, three hundred
T °tcs. why. then, we have mistaken the “signs
5 the times,” that’s all.
Hon. Ii, J. Gartrell.
The election for Governor, members of Con
fess. n:.d members of the Legislature, is close
11 hand. One more week and the political
£laiiiat'.|> <if the present canvass will sheathe
their mvi .ids some to be crowned with the
“ureb of victory: others to go into retire-
*®t. and take position with the vanquished.
The Democratic jiarty, of the 4th Congression-
11 district, at tiie owning of the campaign,
I’kced their standard in the hands of the gal
oot gentleman whose name heads this article,
•hid worthily and fearlessly has be borne it.
opponent had some reputation as a stump
t[eak<-r. By mutual agreement they have
canvassed the District. Their appointments
*** oow about terminated. They have visited
ettty county in the District, and discussed the
Political issues upon which the people «f the
■'tote arc divided. Upon every field of con-
®ict. our standard-bearer has home himself
*%• No canilid man can say that Col. Gar-
ktil has not borne off the palm of victory, in
{Ver y lmssage at arms which has taken place
jetwe en him and his honorable opponent.—
"HI not claim for Col. Gartrell such a vast
^JUnt of superiority, in point of intellect,
’’'or CoL Wright, yet we might safely do so,
Jet his advocacy of correct principles, truth
justice, gave him such an advantage over
Id* adversary, that it cannot, in any wise, be
**totishing that victory should always have
P*rch»d upon his banner. The die is oast.—
result of the coming election is known by
•*1 What the Democratic majority will be—
Aether 2,000 or 2,500, time alone must de
And why should it not be so ? The
District is largely Democratic. CoL Gar-
“ERROR CEASES TO BE DANGEROUS, WHEN REASON IS LEFT TO COMBAT IT.*—JEFFERSON.
PROPRIE1
ATLANTA, GEO., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1859.
NO. 49.
trell has, for the last two sessions, been our
Representative in Congress. Faithfully has
he represented his District. His stentorian
aoice was heard, and the blows of his stalwart
arm were felt, in every conflict, wherein the
rights of his native South were involved. He
may not have originated any great measure
of Governmental policy—few there he that do
this—but we say it, "with all the responsibili
ty which attaches,that the South had no abler
and willing defender of her rights in the last
Congress, than Lucius J. Gartrell. Schooled
as be has been in the Congress of the United
States, he is vastly the superior of his compet
itor to promote the interests of his constitu
ents. The people of the 4th District appreci
ate his worth, and on the 1st Monday in Oc
tober next will pronounce in tones of thunder
that a well fried public servant shall not go
unrewarded for his patriotism and fidelity to
their interests.
OhoervatiMM an S tutor Diaglu’i Tlewa i
Popular Sovereignty, as expressed fat
Harper's Magazine. Cor Sept’ber 1859.
[communicated.]
Messrs. Editors : Permit a correspondent
to give a word or two of cheer to the Demo
cratic ranks elsewhere. The county of Camp
bell, on the first Monday in October next, will
vindicate afresh her title to the name “Dem
ocratic,” and add another laurel to her politi
cal chaplet. Be assured all will be well with
Gartrell and Brown, and when the vote shall
be counted the majorities will be larger than
ever before. The efforts of the Opposition
grow weaker and weaker, and their boasts and
hopes will grow fainter and fainter till they
shall vanish into air. They tell of triumphs
and changes—that Democrats everywhere are
rallying to Akin ", but, alas ! for the sinking
cause ! where you find one poor Democrat,
who, either from Bunk affiiliations or peison-
al malice, opposes the re-election of Governor
Brown, you find a dozen, who, from hot ene
mies. have become his warm political friends
and advocates. The honest}-, diligence and
open frankness of the man, his unflinching ad
herence to the rights of the jieople of the
whole State, and, above all, his sound and un
answerable argument of dollars and cents
poured into the Treasury—all appeal directly
to the hearts of the people, for his unanimous
re-election. And, Democrats of Georgia, shall
they appeal in vain ?
Gov. Brown has refused to enter tire elect
ioneering canvass, because he is employed and
paid by the people to guide the helm of State
—and to abandon it now, to seek bis own per
sonal advancement on the stump, would be a
base shuffling around the post of duty. Be
sides there is no credit to be gained in a war
fare against a man of straw, with breaths of
empty air for principle, whose life is a living
negation of everything and an approval of
nothing—but self. We might tell you of the
mighty men the Opposition have sent among
us, to scare, alarm and astound. First, Wright
of Ncwnan, threw his harmless missile ; then,
Big-Gun, of Lagrange, came to the rescue, and
finally, Homer Virgil Millon Milter, the wonder
ful counsellor, the great Apostle the second,
(allowing Ben to be the first) shot his angry
darts athwart onr political sky. No doubt he
thought he did great execution, and imagined
the field before him was strewn with the dead
and dying of his unerring shots. But when
his artillery was hushed, and the smoke of
his vamping had rolled away, he beheld every
Democrat still firm in his ranks, with his face
to' the foe, ready to do execution that will
speak in thunder tones when the day of battle
comes. Let Georgians and Democrats every
where, rally to the standard of Brown, because
it is the standard of principle, of truth and of
right. Under his guidance tin* prosperity and
glory of the State will be onward and upward,
and two more years will place her another
niche higher, as the Empire State of the
South. CAMPBELL.
C.iuwm.T.Tox, Sapt. If*, 1859.
IKTERBEFTED CORRESPONDENCE.
Atlanty, Sept, 19 1859.
Jonathan Snoodles :
your kind letur to our
komity wus delivurd to the rong purson it
got among them dimicrats about the intelin-
gencer otis an thei put in the nuse paper an
it done us a power uv harm. Our komity is
all mity bissy now triin to get mony for the
barbraeeu but thei aint got much yet an i
am mity frade thei wil make a bad out ov it.
Thei debititised me to rite yu. the old speck
led lien thei sa-ie to give her sum solts. your
mamy we ain seed nothin uv her about Atlan
ty. them red Lts skareds our party mity
they all thot it wus sum predicament sent on
i—fer liein so much about Brown and Dr.
Lewis for evry body nows thei ar mity Onest
kind o men. an our parti all nows that ary
one wild make a betur guvnor than Aken.—
but our komity ses we must make out like
we all think lie’s a mity smart man-, to try
to ceep our parti together, an thei will nom-
inat a smartui man next time- botewil me
an yu—dont tel Our komity 1 dont like
Aken much he is sich a turn koat now yu
no Jonathan that iu 1850 that this very same
Aken wanted to rase a army to go an whoop
South Carlina into abolitionism now yeu see
he ses that aint populur an he’s turn to be a
grate fire eatur. i’mafrade a grate many uv
our parte wont vote for him on that akount.
Cosin Jon is ruin for the hous in fulton koun-
ty lie is flyin round mity but our komity ses
he wont be elected. Couse he wont get anuf
vots. i dont think lie will be elected myself
for i red iu the proverbs somwliar m websters
Spelin Book, that the still sow allurs drunk
the slop now the dimikratik Kandidat Mr Tol
iver is one iiv em still kind o men an a mity
clever feller—an i think he will bete Cosin
Jon mity bad But we ar gotn to do our level
best
i ever remane yurs in
Bonds ov n. n. i
PETER SPUIGLES.
Pan Handle, Neer atlanty. ftlti'N koun-
TEE, GA.
mr. haygude, simxun, kilhune others commitg.
i knoticed in the “notion
al amerikyn” yurkeerd solycitin letturs fram
yur freens in all poyslmus uv the stait. so i
thortei wood rite yu the nuse frum our iieet.
the nuse is not very glide in this parte uv the
countee. sum uv our jiartee sai as how thay
wont voat fur sqire kilhune an “Cozen john”
til thay cum out an sai whar thay inten fcu
hav the depo uv the Jacsunvil rale rode hilt,
it is cyrkulated in this naliurhood that “Coz
en john” haz promised tu hav it put neer mr.
william Kyles.—if this ar tru thar ar a gude
many hear that wont voat fur hym. i think
it wood bee a gude idee fur yu tu git up a do-
kyment about the matur an sen it out hear.—
i wil du mi best in cyrkulatin them amung
the I cys ef yu wil sen them tu me. yu no
that uncle jim’s groceree is in a mity sintrel
pint, tel “Cozen john” i think he orter sen
sum uv thim 5 cents testy merits ovur hear
what it wus Bade he wus cyrkulatin amung
the beknited. i think it wood git the wim
en fokeson his syde, an i did here wun oman
tel her ole man that he must not voat fur
‘ Cozen john.” thay al no “Cozen john.”
he uze to liv rite abuv hear on the staite rale
rode.
i here our uoys ar proposm
tu bet on the elekshnn. ef thay du tel
thim not tu bet with thim fellurs what has
garnisheeniences sarved aftur thay luse. yu
no our boys lost a heep by thim enfurnal do-
kymens last eleksun. i thorte it was mity
meen, but thenj,it was jest like the demikratr.
Kant yu cum out an se us and fech sum funs,
we kan uze thim tu du sum gude hear at Un-
cel jims Groceree. i wil rite tuyu agin t-
fore the elekshun, ef we sliood want eny moar
funs or dokyments arter the supli is goan
what yu sen meinanser tu this hear epystul.
youm til deth,
RANbY SNIFFLE.
Brown ahead.
An intelligent gentleman from Murray Co.,
informs ms that the counties contiguous to
Murray, off the State Road, are for Brown fiist
last and all the time. In the counties of Gor
don, Pickens, Gilmer, Cherokee, Forsyth,
Lumpkin, Union & Murray, the opposition can
didates for the Legislature are all Brown men
with the exception of one. Thus the ball
rolls! Let the opposition pretend that Akin
will be elected ! We expect Gov. Brown to
T^nirg a large gain in the 2d District oyer his
last vote. He will sweep the State.—£ Col.
Snn.
Every one knows that Mr. Douglas, the
Senator from Illinois, has written and printed
ail • claim rate essay, comprising thirty-eight
columns of “Harper's Magazine, in which he
has undertaken to point out the “dividing
line between federal and local authority.”—
Very many persons have glanced over its par
agraphs to catch the leading ideas without
the loss of time, and some have probably read
it through with care.
Those who dissent from the doctrines of
this paper owe to its author, if not to its ar
guments, a most respectful answer. Mr. Doug
las is not the man to be treated with a dis
dainful silence. His ability is a fact unques
tioned ; his public career, in the face of many
disadvantages, has been uncommonly success
ful ; and he has been for many years a work
ing, struggling candidate for the Presidency.
He is, moreover, the Corypheus of his politi
cal sect—the founder of a new school—and
his disciples naturally believe in the infallible
variety of his words as a part of their faith.
The style of the article is, in some respects,
highly commendable. It is entirelv from the
vulger clap-trap of the stump, and has no
vain adornment of classical scholarship, But
it shows no sign of the eloquent Senator : it
is even without the logic of the great debater.
Many portions of it are very obscure. It
seems to be an unsuccessful effort at legal
precision ; like the writing of a judge, who is
trying in vain to give good reasous for a
wrong decision on a question of law which he
has not quite mastered.
With the htlp of Messrs. Seward and Lin
coln, he has defined accurately enough the
platform of the so called Republican party ;
and he does not attempt to conceal his con
viction that their doctrines are, in the last
degree dangerous. They are, most assuredly
full of evil and saturated with mischief. The
“irrepressible conflict” which they speak of
witii so much pleasure between the “oppos
ing and enduring forces” of the Northern
and Southern States, will be fatal, not merely,
to tiie peace of the country, but to the exis-
tance of the Government itself. Mr. Douglas
knows this, and he knows, also, that the Dem
ocratic party is the only power which is, or
can be, organized to resist the Republican for
ces or opposes their hostile march upon the
capital. He who divides and weakens the
friends of the country at such a crisis in her
fortunes, assums a very grave resjionsibility.
Mr. Douglas separates the Democratic par
ty into three classes, and describes them as
follows:
“First. Those who believe that the Consti
tution of the United States neither establishes
nor prohibits slavery in the States or Territo
ries beyond the power of the people legally to
control it, but leaves the people thereof per
fectly free to form and regulate their domes
tic institutions in their own way, subject on
ly to the Constitution of the United States.
'Second. Those who believe that the Con
stitution establishes slavery in the territories,
and withholds from Congress and the territo
rial legislature the power to control it, and
who insists that, in the event the territorial
legislature fails to enact the requisite laws for
its protection, it becomes the imperative du
ty of Congress to interpose its authority, and
furnish such protection.
Third. Those who, while professing to be
lieve that the Constitution establishes slavery
in the territories beyond the (lower of Cou-
gess or the territorial legislature to control it,
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 slavery in the territories
without any law upon the subject.”
We give Mr. Douglas the benefit of his own
statement. This is his mode of expressing
those differences, which, he says, disturb the
harmony, and threaten the harmony of the
American Democracy. These passages should,
ciral'.n-u.Lci uukI carefully considered
The first class Ls the one to which he him
self belongs and to both the others he is e-
qually opposed. He has no ri ;ht to come be
tween the second and third class. If the dif
ference which lie speaks of does exist among
his opponents, it is their business, not his, to
settle it or fight it out. We shall therefore
confine ourselves to the dispute between Mr.
Douglas and his followers on the one hand,
and the rest of the democratic party on the
other, presuming that he will be w illing to
observe tbe principle of non-intervention in
all matters with which he lias no concern.
We will invert the order in which he has
discussed the subject, and endeavor to show—
1. That he lias not correctly stated the
doctrine held by his opponents ; and,
2. That his own opinion, as given by
himself, are altogether unsound.
I. He says that a certain portion of the
Democratic party believe, or profess to believe,
that the constitution establishes slavery in the ter-
itories, and insist that it is the duty of the ju
diciary to maintain it there without any law on
the subject. Wc do net charge him with any
intention to be unfair : but we assert, that lie
has in fact done wrong to, probably, to nine
teen-twentieths of the party, by attempting
to put them on grounds which they never
chose for themselves.
The Constitution certainly does not establish
slavery in the territories, nor anywhere else.
Nobody in this country ever thought or said
so.’ But the Con .titution regards as sacred
and iiivoilalile all the rights which a citizen
may legally acquire in a State, and goes with
it into a territory, he is not for that reason to
he striped of it. Our simple and plain propo
sition is, that the legal owner of a slave or
other chattle may go with it into a Federal
territory without forfeiting his title.
Who denies the truth of this, and and upon
what gorund can it be controverted ? The
reasons which support it are very obvious and
very conclusive: As a jurist and a statesman.
Mr. Douglas ought to be familiar with them,
and there wasa time when he was supposed to
understand them very well. We will briefly
give him a few of them.
1. It is an axiomatic principle ©f public
law, that a right of property, a private rela
tion, condition or status, lawfully existing in
one State or country, is not changed by mere
removal of the parties to another country,
unless the law of that other country be in di
rect conflict with it. For instance : A mar
riage legally solemnized in France is binding
in America : children bom in germany are le
gitimate there : and a mt-rcliant who buys
good- in New York according to the laws of
that m dc may carry them to Illinois and
hold them there under his contract. It is
precisely so with the status of a negro carried
from otic (nu t of the United States to anoth
er : the question of his freedom orservitude
depends on the law of the place where he
came fium, and depends on that alone, if
there be no conflicting law at the place to
which he goes or is token. The Federal Con
stitution therefore recognizes slavery as a le
gal condition wherever the local governments
have chosen to let it stand unabolished, and
regards it as illegal wherever the laws of Jthe
place have forbidsn it. A slave being prop
erty in Virginia, remains property ; and his
master has all the righto of a Virginia master
wherever he may go, so that he go not to any
place where the local law comes in conflict
with his right. It will not be pretended that
the Constitution itself furnishes to the terri
tories ft conflicting law. It contains no pro
vision that can be tortured into any sem
blance of a prohibition.
2. The dispute on the question whether
slavery or feedom is local or greneral, is mere
war of words. The black race in this coun
try is neither bond nor free by virtue of any
general law- That portion of it which is free
by virtue of some local regulation, and the
slave owes service for a similar reason. Tiie
Constitution, *pd laws of the United States
simplv declare that everything done in the
in curises bv tiie State governments is right,
and they shall be protected in carrying it out.
But free negroes and slaves may both find
themselves outside of any State jurisdiction,
and in a territory wjiere no regulations has
yet been made on the subject.
There the constitution is equally impartial.
It neither frees the slave nor enslaves the
freoman. It requires both to remain in statu
mo until the status already impreosed upon
them by-the law of their previous domicil snail
be changed by some competent local authori
ty. What is competent local authority in a
Territory will bo elsewnere considered.
3. The Federal Constitution carefully
guards tiie righto of private property against
the Federal Government itself, by declaring
that It shall ndt be taken for public rise with
out compensation, nor without due process of
law.' Slaves are private property, and every
man who has taken nn oatli of fidelity to the
Constitution is religiously, morally and polit
ically bound to regard them - cs such. Does
anybody suppose that a Constiiutiou which
acknowledges tiie sac-redness of private prop
erty so fully would wantonly destroy that
right, not by any words that are found in it,
but by mere implication from its general prin
ciples ? It might as well be asserted that the
general principles of the Constitution gave
Lane and Montgomery a license to steal hor
ses ip the valley of the Osage.
4. The Supreme Court of the United States
has decided the question. After solemn ar
gument and careful consideration, that august
tribunal has announced its opinion to be that
a slaveholder, by going into a Federal Terri
tory, does not lose the title he had to his ne
gro iu the State from which he came. In for
mer times, a question of constitutional law
ofice decided by the Supreme Court was re
garded as settled by all,, except that little
band of ribald infidels, who meet periodically
at Boston to Blaspheme the religions and plot
rebellion against the laws, of the country.—
The leaders 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 Mr. Douglas has no inten
tion to follow their example. In case he is
elected President, he must see the laws faith
fully executed. Does lie think he can keep
that oath by fighting the judiciary t
5. The legislative history of the country
shows that all the great statesmen of former
times entertained the same opinion,-chid Wild
it so firmly that they did not even think of
any other. It was univei sally taken for gran
ted that a slave remained a slave, gud a free
man a freeman, In the new Territories, until
a change was made in their condition by some
enactment. Nobody liclieved that a slave
might not have been taken to and kept in the
Northwest Territory if the ordinance of 1787
or some other regulation Iiad not been made
to prohibit it. The Missouri restriction of
1820 was imposed solely because it was under
stood (probaly by every member of that con
gress) that, in the absence of a restriction,
slave property would be as lawful in the eye
of the Constitution above 36dg. 30min. as be
low ; and all agreed that the mere absence of
a restriction did, in fact, make it lawful be
low the compromise line.
6. It is right to learn wisdom from our ene
mies- The Republicans do not point to any
express provision of the Constitution, nor to
any established rule of law, which sustains
tiieir views. The ablest men among them are
driven by stress of necessity to hunt for argu
ments in a code unrevealed, unwritten, and
undefined, which they put above the Consti
tution or the BiWe, and call it “higher law.”
The ultra abolitionists of New England do
not deny that the Constitution is rightly in
terpreted by the Democrats, as not interfer
ing against slavery in the Territories; but
they disdain to obey what they pronounce to
be “an agreement with death and a covenant
with hell.”
7. What did Mr. Douglas mean when lie
proposed and voted for the Kansas-Nebraska
bil repealing tbe Missori restriction ? Did he
intend to tell southern men that notwith
standing the repeal of the prohibition, they
were excluded from those Territories as much
us ever? Or did he not regard tne 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 it was
necessary to make a positive law in favor of
the slaveholder before he could go there with
safety ? To ask these questions is to ansyrer
them ? The Kansas-Nebraska bill was not
meant as a delusion or a snare.
It was well understood that the "repeal alone
of the restrictions against slavery would throw
the country open to everything which the
Constitution recognized as property.
We have thus given wliat we believe to be
tKo opinions held by the great body of the
Democratic party : namely, that the Federal
Constitution does not establish slavery any
where in the l'nion : that it permits a black
man to be either held in servitvde or made
free as the local law shall decide : and that in
a Territory where no local law on the subject
lias been enacted, it keeps both the slave and
the free negro in tiie status already impressed
upon them, until it shall be changed by com
petent local authority. We have seen that
tills is sustained by the reason of the thing, by
a great principle of public law, by the words
of the Constitutution, by a solemn decision of
the Supreme Court, by the whole, course of
our legislation, l>y the concession of our polit
ical opponents, and, finally, by the most im
portant act in the public life of Mr. Douglas
himself.
Mr. Douglas imputes another absurdity to
his opponents when he charges them with in
sisting “that it is the duty of the judiciary to
protect and maintain slavery in the Territo
ries without any law upon the subject. ’ ’ The judge
who acts without law acts against law ; and
surely no sentiment so atrocious as this was
ever entertained by any portion of the Demo
cratic party. The right of a master to the ser
vices of his slave in a Territoiy is not against
law nor without law, but in full accordance
with law. If the law be against it we are all
against it. Has not the emigrant to Nebras
ka a legal right to the ox team, which, lie
bought in Ohio, to haul him over the plains?
Is not bis title as good to it in the Territory,
as it was in the State where In' got it ? And
what shonld be said of a judge who tells him
that he is not protected, or that he is main
tained, injthe possession of his property “with
out any law upon the subject?”
11. We had a right to expect from Mr.
Douglas at least a clear and intelligible defini
tion of his own doctrine. We arc disappoint
ed. It is hardly possible to conceive anything
more difficult to comprehend. We well tran
scribe it again, and do what eau 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 con
trol it, but ‘leaves the people thereof perfectly
free to form and regulate their domestic insti
tutions in thier own way, subject only to the
Constitution of the United States.”
The Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits
slavery in the States or Territories. If it be meant
by this that the Constitution does not, proprio
vigors, either emancipate any man’s slave, or
create tne condition of slavery, and impose ic
on free negroes, but leaves the question of
every black man’s status, in the Territories as
well as in the States, to be determined by the
local law, then we admit it, for it is the very
same proposition which we have been trying
to prove. But if, on the contrary, it is to be
understood as an assertion that the Constitu
tion does not permit a master tc keep his slave
ov a free negro to have his liberty, in all parts
of the Union where the local law does not in
terfere to prevent it, then the error is not on
ly a very grave one, but it is also absurd and
self-contradictory.
Ih Constitution neither estalbishes nor prohibits
kavsrg in the Slates or Territories beyond the power
oj Un people legally to control it. This Ls sailing
to Point-No-Point again. Of course a subject,
which is legally controlled, cannot be beyond
the power that controls it. But the question
is what constitutes legal control, and when
the people of a State or Territory are in a con
dition to exercise it.
The Constitution of the United States ° ° °
o leaves the people perfectly free, 0 °
® and subject only to the Constitution of the Uni
ted States. This carries us round a full circle,
aud drops us precisely at the place of begin
ning. That the Constitution leaves every
body subject to the Constitution, is most true.
We are far from denying it. We never heard
it doubted, and expect we never will. But
the statement of it .proves nothing, defines
nothing, and explains nothing. It merely
darkens the subject, as words without mean
ing always do.
But notwithstanding all this circuity of ex-
they may frame preparatory to tiieir admis
sion as q State] can regulate Ttnd control tiie
condition of the subject black race within
tiieir respective jurisdictions, so as to make
them bond or free. 1 .’ .
Bnt here we come to the^ point at which
opinions diverge. Some insist that no citizen
can be deprived of his property in slaves, or
in anything else, except by the provision of a
State constitution or by the act of a State
Legislature; while others contend that an
unlimited control over private rights may be
exercised by a Territorial as soon as the earli
est settlements are made.
So strong are the sentiments of Mr. Doug
las in favor of the latter doctrine, that if it
be not established he threatens us with Mr.
SewaTd’s “irrepressible conflict,” which shall
end only with the universal abolition or the
univeisal dominion of slavery. On the other
hand, the President, the Judges of the Su
preme Court, nearly all the Democratic
members of Congress, the whole of the
party South, and a very large majority North,
are penetrated with a conviction, that no such
power is vested in a Territorial Legislature,
and that those who desire to confiscaate pri
vate property of any kind mu6t wait until
they get a constitutional convention or the
machinery of a State government into their
hands. We venture to give the following
reasons for believing that Mr. Douglas is in
e^or:
"he Supreme Court has decided that a Ter-
(ial Legislature has not the power which
iJWlaims for it. That alone Ought to be suf
ficient. There can be no law, order, or secu
rity for any man’s rights, unless the judicial
authority <if the country be upheld, Mr.
Douglas may do wliat he pleases with politi
cal conventions ar.d (mity platforms, hut we
trust lie will give -to the Supreme Court at
least that decent res(ieet, which none but the
most ultra Republicans have yet Withheld.
The right ; of property is sacred, and the
first object all human government is to
make it secure. Life is always unsafe where
property is *fot fully protected. This is the
experience of every people on earth, ancient
and modern. To secure private property was
a principal object of Magna Charla. Charles I
afterwards attempted to violate it, but the
people rose upon him, dragged him to the
block, and severed his head from his body.—
At a still later period another monarch for a
kindred offence was driven out of the coun
try, and died a fugitive and an outcast. Our
own Revolution was provoked by that slight-
invasion upon the right of property which
consisted iu trie exaction of a trifling tax.—
There is no government in the world, howev
er absolute, which would not be disgraced and
endangered by wantonly sacrificing private
property even tc a small extent. For centu
ries past such outrages have ceased to be com
mitted in times of peace among civilized n -
tions.
Slaves are regarded as property in the Sou
thern States. The people of that section buy
and sell, and carry on all their business, pro
vide for their families, ami make their wills
and divide their inheritances on that assump
tion. It is manifest to all who know them,
that no doubts ever cross their minds about
the rightfulness of holding such property.—
They believe they have a direct warrant for it,
not only in the examples of the best men
that ever lived, but in the precepts of Divine
Revelation itself; and they arc thoroughly
satisfied that the relation of master and slave
is the only one which can possibly exist there
between the white and the black race without
ruining both. The people of the North may
differ from their fellow -citizens of the South
on the whole subject, but knowing, as we all
do, that these sentiments are sincerely and
honestly entertained, we cannot wonder that
they feel the most unspeakable indignation
when any attempt is made to interfere with
their rights. 'J his sentiment results natural
ly and necessarily from their education and
habits of thinking. They canaot help it,
any more than an honest man in t'.ie Noitli
can avoid abhorring a thief or liousebreak-
pression and consequent opaqueness of mean
ing in the magazine article of Mr. Douglas,
The juris^, Isgislators, and people of the
Northern States, ha veal ways sacredly respect
ed the right of property in slaves held by
their own jurisdiction. It is a remarkable
fact, very well worth noticing, that no Nor
thern state ever passed any law to take a ne
gro from his master. All laws for the aboli
tion of slavery have operated only on the un
born descendants of the negro race, and the
vested rights of masters have not been dis
turbed in the North more than in the South.
In every nation under heaven, civilized, se
mi-barbarous, or savage, where slavery has
existed in any form at all analogous to ours,
the rights of the masters to the control of
their slaves as property have been respected ;
and on no occasion has any government struck
at British Parliament, when it emancipated
the West India slaves, though it was legisla
ting for a people three thousand miles away,
and not represented, never denied either the
lbgal or the natural right of tbe slave owner.
Slaves were admitted to be property, and tbe
Government acknowledged it by (laying their
masters one hundred millions of dollars for
the privilege of setting them free.
Here, then, is a species of property which
is of transcendent importance to the material
interest of the South—which the people of
that region think it right and meritorious in
the eyes of God and good men to hold—which
is sanctioned by the general sense of all man
kind among whom it has existed—which was
legal only a short time ago in all the States
of the Union, and was then treated as sacred
by every one of them—wliica is guaranteed to
the owner as much as any other property is
guaranteed by the Constitution ; and Mr.
| Douglas thinks that a Territorial Legislature
i is competent to take it away. We say, No ;
the supreme legislative power of a sovereign
State alone can deprive a man of his proper
ty.
This proposition is so plain, so well estab
lished, and so universally acknowledged, that
any argument in its favor would be a mere
waste of words. Mr. Douglas does not deny
it, and it did not require the thousandth part
of his undeniable. He claims for the Terri
torial governments the right of confiscating
private property on the ground that those gov
ernments are sovereign—have an uncontrollable
and independent power over all their internal
affairs. That is the point which he thinks is
to split the Democracy and impale the nation.
But it is so entirely erroneous, that it must
vanish into thin air as soon as it comes to be
examined.
A Territorial government is merely provis
ional and temporary. It is created by Con
gress for the necessary perservation of order
and the purposes of police. The powers con
ferred upou it are expressed in the organic
act, which is the charter ol its existence, and
which may be changed or repealed at the
pleasure of Cqpgress. Iu most of those acts
the power has been expressly reserved to
Congress of revising the Territorial laws, and
the power to repeal them exists without sucli
reservation. This was asserted in the case of
Kansas by the most distinguished Senators in
the Congress of 1££6. The President appoints
the Governor, judges, and all other ofliceis
whose appointment is not otherwise provided
for, directly or indirectly, by Congress. Even
the expenses of the of the Territorial govern
ment are paid out of the Federal Treasury.—
The truth is, they have no attribute of sov
ereignty about them. The essence of sover
eignty consists in having no superior. But a
Territorial government has a superior in the
United States Governmen, upon whose pleas
ure itis dependent for its very existence—in
whom it lives, and moves, and has its being
—who has made, and can unmake it with a
breath.
Where does this sdvereign authority to de
prive men of their property come from ? This
transcendent power, which evt n deposits are
cautious about using, and which a constitu
tional monarch never exercises—how does it
get into a Territorial Legislature ? Surely it
does not drop from the clouds ; it will not be
contended, that it aclompanies the settlers, or
exists in the Territory before its organization.
we think we can guess what his opinions are
or will be when he comes to reconsider the
subject. He will admit (at least he will not
undertake to deny) that the status of a negro,-
whether of servitude or freedom, accompan
ies him wherever he goes, and adheres to him
in every part of the Union until he meets
some local law which changes it.
It will also be agreed that the people of a
State, through their Legislature, and the peo-
the territories. That such power does not ex
ist in the Federal Government, needs no
proof : Mr. Douglas admits it fully and free
ly. It is, besides, established bysolemn de
cision of Congress, by tbe assent oi the Execu
tive, and by the direct ratification of the -peo
ple acting in their primary capacity- at tho
polls. In addition to all this, the Supreme
Court have deliberately adjudged it to be an
uualterable and undeniable rule of constitu
tional law.
This acknowledgment that Congress has no
power, authority, or jurisdiction over the sub
ject, literally obliges -Mr. -Doiiglas to give up
his doctrine, or else to main tain it by assert
ing that a power wliich the federal govern
ment does not possess may lie given by Con
gress to the territorial government. The
right to abolish african slavery iira territory
is not granted by the Constitution to Con
gress ; it is withheld, and therefore the same
as if expressly prohibited. Yet Mr. Douglas
declares that Congress may give it to Territo
ries. Nay he goos further, and says that
the want of the power in Congress is the very
reason why it can deUgate it—the general
rule, in his opsnion, being that Congress can
not delegate the powers it possesses, but may
delegate such, and only such, as Con
gress cannot exercise finder the Constitution!”
By turning to pages 250 and 521, the reader
will see that this astounding piopositioli is
actually made, not in jest or irony, but sol
emnly, seriously and no doubt, in perfect good
faith.
On this principle, ns Congress cannot exer
cise the power to make an ‘ex post facto’ law
or a law impairing the obligation of con
tracts, therefore it m vy authorize such laws
to be made by the town councils of Washing
ton city, or the levy eonrt of the District.—
If Congress passes an act to hang a man
without trial, it is void, and the judges will
not allow it to be executed : but the power to
do this prohibited thing can be constitution
ally given by Congress to a Territorial Legis
lature*.
We admit that tlu re are certain powers be
stowed upon the General Government which
are in their nature judicial or executive.—'
With them Congress can do nothing, except
to see that they are executed by the proper
kind of officers. It is also true that Congress
has certain legislative powers which cannot he
delegated. But Mr. Douglas should have
known that he was not talking about powers
Which belonged to either of these classes, but
ibout a legislative jurisdiction totally forbid
den to the Federal Government, and incapab'e
of being delegated, for the simple reason that
it does not constitutionally exist.
Will anybody s iy that such a power ought,
as a matter of policy, or for reasons of public
safety, to be held by the provisional govern
ments of tiie .Territorits? Undoubtedly no
true patriot, nor no friend of juctiee and or
der, can deliberately relloct on the probable
consequences without depreciating them.
This (lower over property is the one which
in all governments has beeu most carefully
guarded, because the temptation toabuse it is
always greater than any other. It is there
that the subjects of a limited monarchy watch
their king with the greatest jealoussy. No
republic has ever failed to impose strict limi
tations upon it. All free people know, that
if they would remain free, they must compel
the government to keep its hands off their pri
vate property; and.this film be done only by
tying them up with c ireful restrictions. Ac
cordingly our Federal Constitution declare
that “no person shall be deprived ofhisprop-
erty except by due process of law,” and that
“private property shall not be taken for pub
lic use without just coupensation.” It is uni
versally agreed that this applies only to the
exercise of the power by the government of
the United State. We are also protected
against the State governments by a similar
provision in,the State constitutions. Legis
lative robbery is therefore a crime which can
not be committed either by Congress or by
any State Legislature, unless it be done in flat
rebellion to the fundamental law of the laud.
But if the Territorial governments have tin's
power, then they have it without any limita
tion whatsoever, and iu all the fulness of ?bso-.
lute despotism. They are omnipotent in re
gard to all their internal affairs, for they are
sovereigns, without u constitution to hold ehem in
check. And this omuijio-ent sovereignty is to
be wielded by a few men suddenly drawn to-
ge-her from all parts of America and Europe,
unacquainted with one onother, and ignorant
of their relative rights. But if Mr. Douglas is
right, those governments have all the abso
lute power of the Russian Autocrat. They
may take every kind of property in mere ca
price, or for auy purpose of lucre or malice,
without process of law, aiid without provi
ding for compensation. The Legislature of
Kansas, sitting at Lecompton or Lawrence,
may ordei the miners to give up. every ounce
of gold that has been dug at Pike's Peak.
If the authorities of Utah should license a
band of m iuraudere to despoil the emigrants
crossi i :' the Territory, their sovereign right to
do so (• nnot be questioned. A new Territory
may Le organized, which Southern men think
should be devote I to the culture of cotton,
while the people of the North are equally cer
tain that grazing alone is the proper business
ta be carried on thero. If one party, by acci
dent, by force, or by fraud, has a majority in
the Legislature, tde negroes are taken from
tbe planters; and if the other .set gaius a po
litical victory, it is followed hy a statute to
plunder the graziers of their cattle. Such
things cannot be done by the Federal Govern
ment, nor by the govenmeats of the States;
but, if Mr. Eouglas is not mistaken, they can
be done by the Territorial governments. Is
it not evory way better to wait until the new
inhabitants know themselves and one anoth
er ; vntil the policy of the Territory is settled
by some experience ; and, above all, until tiie
great powers of a sovereign State are regular
ly conferred u|H>n them and properly limited,
so as to prevent the gross abuses which al
ways accompany unrestricted power in humau
hands ?
There is another consideration, which Mr.
Douglas should have been the last: man to
overlook. The present Administration of the
Federal Government, and the whole Demo
cratic party throughout the country, includ
ing Mr. Douglas, thought that, in the case of
Kansas, the question of retaining or abolish
ing slavery shuld not be determined by any
representative body without giving to the
whole mass of the people an opportunity of
voting on it. Mr Douglas carried it further,
aud wa.mly opposed the constitution^ deny
ing even its vali iity, because other and undis
puted parts of it had not also been submitted
to a popular vote. New he is willing that the
whole slavery dispute in any Territory, and
all questions that can arise concerning the
rights ot the .people to that or other property,
shall be decided at once by a Territorial Leg
islature, without imj' submission at all. Pop
ular sovereignty in ’the last Congress meant
the freedom of the pi ople from all the re
straints of law and order : now it means a gov-
■emment which shall rule them with a rod of
iron. It swings like a pendulum from one
side clear ovejfeto the other.
Mr. Douglas’s opinions on this subject of
sovereign Territorial governments are very
singular ; hut the reasous he lias produced to
support them are infinitely more curious still*
For instance, he shows that Jefferson once in
troduced into the old <Congress of the Confed
eration a plan for the government of the Ter
ritories, calling them by the name of “New
States,” but not making them anything like
sovereign or independent States; and though
this was a mere experimental project, which
was rejected by Congress, and never afterwads
referred to hy Jefferson himself, yet Mr. Doug*
las ergues upon it as if it had somehow be
come a part of our fundaimental law.
Again : He says that the States gave to the
Federal Govern ii ent the same powers which
as colonies they had been willing to concede
to the British Government, and kept those
which as colonies they l>ad claimed for them
selves - If he will read a common-school his
tory of the Revolution, and then look at Art-
1, sec. 8, of the Constitution, he will find the
professes to give the'very words, and maker, terfere withthe rights of pronertvdn
Mr. Buchanan say * ••’Ihot aiaira>« a-vtafa -m Ww—a aS - r — * .. «*
, r —-- 1 —~~J. ."“That slavery exists in
Kansas by virtue or the'Constitution of the
United States.” What Mr: Buchanan did say
was a very different thin?- It was this: “It
has been solemnly adjudged hy tbe highest
j udieial tribu nal known-, to oar laws, that sla-
veiy exists in Kansas by virtue of the Consti
tution of the United States.” Everybody
knows that by treating the Bible in that way,
you can prove the non-existence of God.
The argumentum ad hominem is not fair, and
we do not mean to use it. Mr. Douglas has a
right to change his opinions whenever he plea
ses. But we quote him as we would any oth
er authority equally high in favor of truth.—
We can prove bv himself that every proposi
tion he lays downi. in Harpers’ Magazine-is
founded in error. Never before has any pub
lic man in America so completely revolution
ized his political opinions in the course of
eighteen months.* We do not deny that the
change is heartfelt and conscientious. We
only insist that he formerly stated his propo
sitions much more clearly, and shstained them
with far greater ability and better reasons,
than lie does now.
When he took a tour to the South, at the
lieginning of last winter, he made a speech at
New Orleans, in which he announced to the
people there that he and his friends in Illinois
accepted the Deed Scott decision, regardedfx&rees as
property, and fully admitted the . right of a
Southern man to go into any Federal territory
with his slave, and to hold him there as other
property is held.
n 1849 he voted in the Senate for what
w’as called Walker’s amendment, by which it
was proposed to put all the internal affairs of
Calafornia and New Mexico under the domin
ation of the President, giving him almost un
limited power, legislative, judicial, and execu
tive,over the internal affairs of those-Territo-
ries. (See 20tli Cong., p, .) Undoubted
ly this was a strange way of treating sover
eignties. If Mr. Douglas is right now, he
was guilty then of most atrocious usurpation.
Utah is as much a sovereign State as any
other Territory, and as perfectly entitled to
enjoy the right of self-government. On the
12th of June, 1857, Mr. Douglas made a
speech about Utah at Springfield, Illinois, in
which he expressed his opinion strongly in fa
vor of the absolute and unconditional repeal
of the organic act. blotting the Territorial
government out of existence, and putting the
people under the sole and exclusive jurisdic
tion of the United States, like a fort, arsenal,
dock-yard, or magazine. He does not seem to
have had the least idea then that he was pro
posing to extinguishing a sovereignty, or to
trample upon the sacred rights of an indepen
dent people.
The report which he made to the Senate, in
185(1, on the Topeka constitution, enunciates
a very different doctrine from that ot the
magazine article. It is true that the language
is a little cloudy, but no one can understand
the following sentences to signify that the
Territorial governments have sovereign (low
er to take away the property of the inhabi
tants :
“The sovereignty of a Territory remains in
abeyance, suspended in the United States, in
trust for the people until they shall be admit
ted into the Union as a State. In the mean
time they are admitted to enjoy and exercise
all the rights and privileges of self-govern
ment, in subordination to the Constitution of
the United States, and in obedience to the or-
a Terri-:: t-k.
tory that the settlers of a Territory are bound ?
to wait until the sovereign power is
wpon them, with proper limitatij
to exercise .the most
of all its functions. Mr. Douglas denies
and there is the new issue.
a raeh an issue he made at such
me Wliat is there now to excuse any
tnend of peace for attempting to stir op the
»t«rs of strife? There is no actual
difficulty about this subject in any Territoiy.
rvInoT 1S no < U* e8t j on u P°n it pending before*
Congress or the the country. We are called
amM,* 0 a 1 contest, at once nnneooeasary
and hopeless, with'the judicial authority of
the nation. We objert^to^it* 1 We h *ai\ot
obey Mr. Douglas when he commands to as-
ault the Supreme Court of the United States,
we believe the court to be right, and Mf.
GougJas wrong.
ganic law passed by Congress in pursuance oi
ivireg
Indeed, it is not to the people, but to thegov- j two following facts fully established : 1. That
eminent of a Territory, that Mr. Douglas j the Federal Government has “powev to lay
says it belongs. Then Congress must give the 1 and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and exci-
power at the same time that it gives the Ter- s.-sand, 2. That the colonies, before the
ritorial government., But not a word of the j Revolution, utterly refused to be taxed by
kind is to be fouud in any organtic act that Great Britain; and so far from conceding the
ever was framed. It is thus that Mr. "Doug- power, fought against it for seven long Years,
las’s article runs itself out into nothing. j There is another thing in the article whiciiN
But if Congress would pass a statute express- if it had not come from a distinguished Sena-
ly to give this sort of power to the territorial tor, and a very upright gentlemau, wonld
governments, they still would not have it; j.have been open to some imputation of unfair-
for the Federal Government itself does not 1 ness. He quotes the President’s message
that instrument, 't hese lights and privileges
are all derived from the Constitution, through
the act of Congress, and must be exercised
and enjoyed in subjection to all the limita
tions and restrictions which that Constitution
imposes.”
The letter he addressed to a Philadelphia
meeting, in February, 18-..8, is more explicit,
and, barring some anomalous idea concerning
the abeyance of the power aud the suspension
of it in trust, it is clear enough:
“Under our Territorial system, it requires
sovereign power to ordain and establish con-
«titutions and governments. While a Terri
tory may add should enjoy all the rights of
self government, in obedience to its organic
law, it is not a sovereign power. The sover
eignty of a Territory remains in abeyance, sus
pended in tiie United States, in trust for the
people when they become a State, and cannot
be withdrawn from the hands of the trustee
and vested in the people of a Territory with
out the consent of Congress.”
The report which he made in the same
month, from the Senate Committee on Terri
tories, is equally distinct, and rather more
emphatic against his new doctrine :
“This committee in their reports have al
ways held that a Territory is not a sovereign
power ; that tiie sovereignty of a Territory is
in abeyance, suspended in the United States,
in tiust for the people when they become a
State ; that the United States, as trustees, can
not be divested of the sovereignty, nor the ter
ritory be invested with the right to assume
and exercise rt, without the consent of Con
gress. If the proposition he true that sover
eign (lower alone can institute governments,
and that the sovereignty of a Territory is ip
abeyance, suspended in the United States, in
trust for the people when they become a State
and that the sovereignty cannot he divested
from the hands of the trustee without the as
sent of Congress, it follows, as an inevitable
consequence, that the Kansas Legislature did
not and could not confer upon tiie Lecompton
convention the sovereign power of ordaining
a coDstitntion-for the people 6. Kansas, in
place of the organic act passed by Congress.”
' The days are past and gone when Mr. Dou
glas led the ii-'ry assaults of the opposition in
the Lecompton controversey. Then it w s his
object to prove that a Territorial Legislature,
so tar from being omnipotent, was powerless
even to'authorize an election of delegate
to consider about their own affairs. It was
asserted that a convention chosen under a
Territorial law could make and ordain no con
stitution which would be legally binding. -
Then a Territorial government was to be
despised and spit upon, even when it invited
the people to come forward and vote on a
question of the most vital importance to then-
own interests. But now all things have be •
come new. The Lecompton dispute has ‘gone
glimmering down the dream oi tilings that
were,’ and Mr. Douglas produces another L-
sue, brand new from the mint. The old opin
ions are not worth a rush to liis present posi
tion: it must be sustained by opposite princi
ples and reasoning totally different. The Leg
islature of Kansas was hot sovereign when it
authorized a convention of the people to as
semble aud to decide what sort of a constitu
tion they would have, but when it strikes at
their rights of property, it becomes not only a
sovereign, but a sovereign without limitation
of power. We have no idea that Mr. Douglas
is hot perfectly sincere, as he was also when
he took the other side. Tire impulses engen
dered by the heat of controversy have driven
him at different times iu opposite directions.
We.iio not charge it against him as a crime,
hut it is true.that tnese views ot liis, inconsis
tent as they are with one another, alwuys hap-
pen to accord with the interest of the opposi
tion, always give to the enemies of the Con
stitution a certain amount of ‘aid and comfort’
and always add a little to the rancorous and
malignant hatred with which the Abolitionists
regard the Government of their own country.
Yes ; the Lecompton issue winch Mr. Dou
glas made u(ioii the Administration two years
ago is done, and the principles on which we
were then opposed are abandoned. We are
no longer required to fight lor the lawfillness
of a Territorial election held under Territorial
authority. But another issue is thrust upon
us, to “disturb the harmony and threaten tbe
integrity” of the party. A few words more,
(perhaps of tedious repetition,) bv wav of
showing what new issue is, or probable."will
be, aud we are done.
.We insist that ail emigrant going into a
Federal Territory, retains his title to the pro
perty which lie took with him, until there is
some prohibition enacted by lawful authority.
Mr. Douglas cannot deny this in the face of
his New Orleans speech, and the overwhelm
ing reasons which support it.
It is an agreed point among all Democrats
that Congress cannot interfere with the rights
of property in the Territories.
It is also acknowledged that the people of a
new State, either in tiieir constitution or in
an act of their Legislature, may iWV \ the ne
groes within it free, or hold thernTr
sscrvitv.de.
We'
Keep It before the People,
That Col. Akin said) in 1850 or ’51, that if
South Carolina should secede from the Union,
he would join the Federal troops to whip her
hack. Let CoL Akin dare deny this, charge,
and we will prove it on him by the best sort
of testimony. A nice man is Col. Akin to he
talking about Gov. Brown’s recreancy, to
Southern Rights. Gov. Brown has always
been a Southern Rightsfrnan of the right sort.
Col. Akin, never. We are sorry for the Dem
ocrat who has so far lost sight of his country’s
welf.irft and his party, as to he willing, under
present circumstances, to vote for Akin. Let
every Democrat do his duty, in Georgia, aud
Gov. Brown will reach that 30,000, and we
will carry every Congressman in the State.
M ould not that be glory enough for one day ?
It is possible. Let it be done. V.
Mr. Hull’s Letter.
We publish in another place, a letter from
Win. Hope Hull, Esq., of Athens, Ga., deny
ing the charge that he had deserted Governor
Biown and “gone over to Akin.” The Oppo
sition have, for some weeks past, been
inff a course of reckless
mg a course of reckless misrepresentation,
which does them little credit. Wm. H. jfnij,
is a true and reliable Democrat. His high
position as a man, a lawyer and politician,
was seized upon by our enemies to disaflect
other members of the party towards Governor
Brown. In this they have signally failed, and
the public may judge, by tiieir misrepresented
tion in this case, of how much reliance may
he placed in their statements, as regards oth
er Democrats, who they say are going to vote
for Col. Akin. Our own opinion is. that tiie
Democratic votes which C ol. Akin will re
ceive, will be like angels’ visits, “few and far
between.” Where he will get one Democrat
ic vote, we doubt not, Gov. Brown will receive
ten ot the American party. The lion st yeo
manry of the country are capable of apprecia
ting the fidelity and integrity of Gov. Brown,
and will not he led away by such clap-trap ar
guments as the Opposition are using against
him.
hurtful
J
“Th c Tongue of a Viper Is lr«
than that of a Slanderer,
Now that the Gubernatorial campaign is
soon to close, it is amusing to observe the
contemptible subterfuges to which certain of
our press resort to furtherthe interests of their
party and candidates. Utterly ignoring all
manner of courtesy and gentility, respecting
neither sacred aud private rights nor public
virtues, they seem bent on waging a relentless
war, wielding with the arm of a Sampson,
that Archimedean lever of the Opposition
press, low-flung billingsgate. We had hoped
to see this canvass characterized by a spirit of
liberality and generous rivalry. Losing sight
of all the nobler impulses which should gov
ern man in the tree discussion of men and
measures jiertaining to the public weal, sow-
of flic Opposition press, urged on by the in
toxication of party zeal, have arrived at that
desperate stage wliich the debauchee some
times reaches, of perpetrating deeds “dark as
the confines of perdition. ’ ’ This we regard as
truly a lamentable state of affairs, when our
public prints can find no nobler occupation
than traduciug the private actions and cal u-
mniating the public character of good and
true men. We are willing to accord to polit
ical writers the right to argue the fitness of a
candidate for the position to which he aspires,
but beyond this, he’siiould be sacred from their
vulture talons. We want no better evidence
of an “exhausted argument ” than to hear its
advocates- resort "to personalities, virtually
shifting the issue. To be a candidate in this
enlightened (?) ago, requires more nerve
than tiie generality of meu possess ; for no
man, however spotless his character, is will
ing to be placed as a targ t for tiie above
named class of editorial Lilliputians to tire at;
to be villilied, simply because lie fails to meet
the political approval of a hungry set of
scheming Jackalls.
'These reflections have been suggested by
the frequent manner in which certain of tiie
■‘Opposition” have paraded before the public,
with liyena-like pertinacity, the private ac
tions of honorable men in tiie Democratic
ranks. To tolerate this, wc repeat, the aspi
rant lor office must l>e a man of nerve and
patience. It has been our earnest wish and
desire to conduct the present canvass in a pa
cific and courteous maner ; that we have fail
ed in this to some extent, is no fault of ours.
To deal with a party that opposes absolutely
everything, and couples that opposition with
bitter tirades of uncalled-for abuse, require q
as much patience as Job himself is supposeu
to have possessed, lime and again, we have
endeavored, in a becoming manner, to meet
and disprove the many wdful and knowing
slanders which have been'he;qled both upou
ourselves and those good and true men whose
claims wc have advocated, and whose charac
ters will soon be vindicated at thc ballot-box,
where their vile traducers will rec ive that
rebuke wliich the just indignation of an out
raged people cannnt and will not fail to give
them.
The democratic candidate for Governor, has
been before tiie country ill an official capaoity
for two years* during this time he has been
industriously engaged in developing the re
sources of cur State, in forwarding the inte
rests of her people, aud in keeping a watchful
eye over her finances. Wheth r or not he has
succeeded in this laudable undertaking, we
are willing to ieave to the decision of all rea
sonable and right-fliinkiug men ; we give it
as nur opinion that he has succeeded. His offi
cial acts arc open for inspection, and liis im
aginary sins of “omission and commission”
have been herraldcd throughout the land.—
Look at them ! view them in tiieir worst
light, and still we are willing that he should
be “weighed,” and if “found wanting,” will
submit to tbe decree as.righteous, without _a
murmur.
But Gov. Brown will not be ‘ found want
ing.” He has made an excellent Governor.
The people know it, and so do many that are
' • J ' ’er^psvilLJ^-
H
now slander 1
avail
J
pie of a Territory, in the constitution which possess any control over men’s property in and begins in the middle of a sentence. H-