Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1850-09-05
P @ L [ I I G. A l..
JUDGE DOUGLASS SPEECH.

JUDUE DOUGLAS'S SPEECH
The following remarks on the late speech O.
Senator Douglass, we copy from the Boston
| Post =
! The interminable discussion on the Com
promise Bill has occasioned unwonted contests
wherein individuals of acknowledged ability
and whose patriotism is unquestioned-mem
bers of the same party-senators of the same
state even-were found antagonists. A mos
able speech of Judge Douglass, of Illinois, i:
the product of one of these contests, for it is :
reply to the argument of Mr.. Soule of Lou.
isiana relative to the public lands of the United
States in California. 1t is an effort of one o
the strongest and most reliable and clear head.
ed democrats of one state, against one of the
most brilliant and fascinating democrats of an
other state. 1t is well worthy of a perusal
for it is characterized by that thoroughness
closeness of reasoning, and, we in this case
hesitate not to say, conclusiveness, that usual
ly mark Judge Douglass speeches. He clear
| ly has the better of his distinguished antaqo.
! mist.
/ The main purpose of Senator Douglass is
TO vindicate the bill from the charge made
againsti it, that in the shape in which it came
from the committee on territories, or with sub
sequent amendment, the public lands would es-
cheat TO the state of California and that the
/ United States would be divested of their title
lhls was the position defended with much abil-
ity by Mr.. Soule; and his argument rest
ed mainly, if not entirely, on the proposition
that each state of the union is an absolute SOW
eregnty, and that sovereignty necessarily in
cludes, and is inseparable from, ownership OF
the soil.
This question is an interesting one histori-
cally and politically. It may be interesting to
our readers to see at glance how the great
est landholder in the world, this republic, got
its title to so much property. Mr.. Douglass
thus concisely states it,
"The States Of the U;.ion may be said, il
| may be permitted 10 use such an express
sion, TO be limited sovereignties; that is to
say, they are sovereign within the sphere OF
their appropriate duties, and to the extent
that they are not restrained by the const,u>
ton. Bat passing 10 the latter part of the
pi proposition, which implies that sovereignty
necessarily includes ownership of the soil !:
This proposition is attempted TO be main
tanned by quotations fom Vatie. 1t is NOT
my purpose TO question The high authority OF
that author; bur it should be borne in mind
that VaItel wrote ofthe laws of nations and
/ . nj ,f a /
at the time he lived. AZ that period the
ieudal system was in its full vigor. 1t con-
sliuled the basis upon which all European
governments were constructed. According
TO the theory OF that system, the sovereign
was the owner OF all the soil within his do
minion. He divided cut his territory among
his mobiles who became his vassals, and held
1t on condition of rendering military or Other
service, and those mobiles divided il again
between their vassals on like conditions
Hence the sovereign was understood at least
by hciIon OF law, 10 he the owner of ali the
soil within his kingdom, although others
hold II IN possession. And, sir, Vatlel was
speaking OF that system when he indited the
passage which has been quoted from his
work 10 sustain the POSITION now assumed
by the senator from Louisiana. | have on
ly TO remark then. that the teuda system is
not IN existence here. 1t was swept away
by the revolution, AMI the last vestiges OF il
are gone. All of our titles are allodial.-
We hold onr lands by fee simple tenure, en-
tirely independent OF the government, and
without any condition of the rendering SER
vice or paying homage therefor
Now, Mr.. President, when we come TO
consider this question with reference 10 the
states OF !liis union, we have never acted up
on the principle that ownersh,i OF the soil is
an essential ingredient of sovereignty, not
even before the adoption of the constitution
Of the United States. Some states Of tile
union were permitted TO hold land within
the boundaries of oihers--as Connecticut
did within New York, and subsequently in
Ohio, and as Massachusetts now does within
the state of Maine. In other states, boards
of proprietoIs, whose titles were acquired
prior 10 the revolution, continued 10 hold
the public domain, and do al this day. as is
the case in New Jersey. Hence, sir, we
have never acted upon the principle that the
sovereignty necessarily includes the owner
ship of the soil. When the revolution took
place, and new system of government was
called into existence, all the vacant and un-
appropriated lands within the different states
OF the union became the property of those
states, for the palpable reason that there was
10 other owner.
But the operation of this principle only
extended 10 the vacant and unappropriated
lands, and divested The title of no person or
power on earth except England and her ad-
herentS, with whom we were az war. The
only dispute that arose in regard to these
| lands had reference TO the territory north =
west of the river Ohio. That territory, or
al least portions of it., was claimed by var-
ous states as being within their respective
| limits. Nearly all their charters from the
| British crown in terms extended westward,
| according to The courses indicated, indefi-
nitely to the South Sea or Pacific. When
the geography of the country came to be
better understood, and the boundaries of The
colonies, or states, as they are now called.
were ascertained, il was discovered that in
the territory alluded to, they ran across and
into and Tapped over each other, SO that the
same district OF country was actually EN-.
! braced within the chartered limits of three
| or four different states. This difficulty was
solved and the dispute amicably settled, up
on the recommendation of congress, by a
cession by New York, Connecticut. and the
other states interested, of said territory 10 the
| United States. | have in the volume before
me all these deeds of cession, which vest in
the United States the title TO all the lands in
the territory northwest of the Ohio.
From this review, it will be seen that the
United States government, which is the larg-
est land owner perhaps in the world, has
never held one foot ofIand by virtue Of lis
sovereignty. Sovereignty was not the title
| by which we have claimed or held one acre
of our public lands. We hold the lands by
virtue Of the same title that an individual