The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1850-08-31
From the Boston Post
Judge Douglass Speech.


ise Bill has occasioned unwonted contests, where
IN individuals of acknowledged ability and whose
patriotism Is nqucstinued--mem6ers of the
same paty--senators Of the same state even
were ioHnd antagonists A most able speech Of
Juge Douglass, of Illinois, is the product of one
ol those contests, for it is reply to the argument
oi MIR. SOnlet of louisiana, relative to the public
lands OF the United States in California II an
effort, OF one of the strongest and most reliable
and cIear-headed democrats of one state, against
one of the most brilliant and fascinating democrats
! Of another state. 1t is well worthy OF perusal,
fol is characterized by that thoroughness. close
ness OF reasoning, and in this case hesitate not
to say, conclu-iveness, that mark usually Judge
Douglass speeches. He clearly has the better Of
his distinguished antagonist,
| The main purpose Of Senator Douglass is to
1 ylndlcae the bill from the charge made against it,
that, in the shape in which it came from the com
mittee on territories or with subsequent amend
ment, the public lands would escheat to the state
Of California, and that the United States would
be diycsted Of their title This was the position
defended with much ability by Mr.. Soule; aud
/ his argument rested maisly, il not entirely, on
| the proposition that each state Of the Union is
an absolute sovereignty, and that sovereignty
necessarily includes, and is inseparahe from, own
crship of the soil
| lhs question is an interesting one historically
and politically. II may be interesting to our
readers to see at glance how the greatest land
holder IN the world, this republic got its title to
so much property. Mr.. Douglass thus concisely,
states it.
'ihe States of the Union may be said, if |
may be permitted to Use such an expression. to
be limited sovereigntes; that is to say, they are
sovereign within the sphere of their appropriate
duties and to the extent that they are not restrain
dby the constitution But passing to the latter
part of the proposition, which implies that sover.
elsnty necessarily Includes ownership Of the soil:
lhls proposition is attempted 10 be maintained by
quotations from Nattel, 1t is not my purpose to
question the high authority Of that author but it
should be borne in mind that Vattel wrote of the
laws OF nations and the principles Of government
n they existed at the time he lived At that
period the feudal system was IN its full vigor |;
constituted the basis upon which all European
governments were constructed. According to the
theory of that system, the sovereign was the own
er OF all the soil within his dominion. He divided
out his territory among his MOBILES who became
his vassls, and held it ON condition of rendering
military or other service and those mobiles divided
1t again between their vassals on like conditions
Hence the sovereign was understood at least bl
a hctlOn Of law TO be the owner Of all the sol
within his kingdom, although others held it in pos
session. And, sir Nattel was speaking of thai
system when he indlted the passage which ha.
been quoted fro III his work to sustain the position
now assumed by the Senator from Louisiana
have Onlyto remark, then that the feudal system
is not in existence here 1t was swept away by
the revolution, and the last yestiges Of it are
gone. All of our titles are allodial We hold
all our lands by iee-smple tenure, entirely indie
pendent OF the government and without any con
dtion OF the rendering service or paying homage
therefor
Il Now, MIR. President, when we come to consider
tins question with reference TO the states Of thi
union, we have never acted upon the priucipl,
that ownership of the soil is an essential ingredi
ent OF sovereignty, not even before the adoption
! Of the constitution of the United States. Soml
states OF the union were permitted to hold Ian,
within the boundaries Of othcrs--as CUnncctcu
/ did within New York. and subsequently in Ohio
and rs Massachusetts now does within the stat
Of Maine. In other states, boards of proprietor.
whose titles were acquired prior to the revolution
! continued 20 hold the public domain, and do a
this day aS is the case in New Jersey Hence
II sir, we have never acted upon the principle tina
- the sovereignty necessarily includes the owner
i ship OF the soil When the revolution took place
and II new system Of government was called int
, existence, all the vacant and inappropriate
:. lands within the different states of the union be
!, came the property Of those states, for the papa
ble reason that there was no other owner.
But the operation of this principle only cXten
dcd TO the vacant and unappropriatcd lands, ano
divestod the title OF no person or power on eartl
i except England and her adherents, with whom
- We were at war. The only dispute that arose il
regard to these lands had reference to the terrific
l. ry northwest Of the river Ohio. That territory
. or at least portions of it, was claimed by variou
y states as being within their respective limits
c Nearly all their charters from the British crow
i in terms extended westward according to tn
, course Indicated indefinitely TO the South Sea o
; Pacific. When the geography Of the countr
: came To be better understood, and the boundarc
b of the colonies, or states, they ao now called
i were as'ertained, it was discovered that in tn
g territory alluded TO, they run across and into an
= Tapped over each other so that the same diStric
of country was actually embraced within tn
chartered limits of three or four different states
Q This difficulty was solved and the dispute amica
bly, settled, upon the recommendation of congres:
/ by IA cess,on by Virginia, New York, Connection
y and the other states interested. of sad tcrritor
: to fhe United States bavc in the volume bC
/. fore me all these deeds Of ccSsion, which vest i
d territory northwest Of the Ohio
g From this review it will be seen that the Tn
9 ted States government, which is the largest Ian
u owner perhaps in the world has never held on
y foot Of land by virtue Of its sovereignty. Sovcr
L eighty was not the title by which we have claim
y ed or held one acre of our public lands. "
y hold the lands by virtue oi the same title that II
Al individual possesses his own estate. The goverr
J. mcnt holds its lands by deeds of conveyance. |
Is the case of the northwest territory she held it
y deed of cession to which have referred. In III
II case of Tennessee, she held it 10y the deed ofce
sion from North Carolina. In Mississippi an
Alabama, she holds the lands by u deed of CO
IT sion from Georgia. In the Louisiana terrItor,
+, including the states Of Louisiana Arkansas, Mi
's sour, Iowa, and the vacant territory, she hole
T. the lands by ccssion from the government
le France Florida she acquired 10y ccssion fro,
Spain. and New Mexico and California by ccssic
'e from the republic OF Mexico. Hence all Of III
IS public lands are held 10y the government by pu
10 chase, hy ccssiou, 10y deed Of conveyance, upc
n nm adcduatc considerations the same as any ind
T. yidual holds his estate, and not 10y virtue of Il
u sovereignty of the nation
:, ~ Having thus acquired the title to these Ian,
/. the next question Senator Douglass discusses
Al AZ ~, l.ll IL