The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1856-11-01
,, .. Rlackwell,s speech Last Week.

Il. 9. BIackwell'S speech Last week.
Neither the time nor space at our com
mand rendered it practicable for US, In our
last issue, to even name the topics, much
less to give synopsis Of the able speeches
that were delivered during the afternoon and
evening of Friday, by Col. Richa, dson, Hon.
j. L. Robinson, L. Osgood, r. S. Blackwell,
&C., nor do we propose to supply the omis-
sion now. But there was portion of the
evening speech of Mr.. Blackwell, so impor.
tant that we cannot refrain from making d
special reference to it. What we alludc to,
was the very clear and able exposition he
gave Of the rue position Of the democracy
on the slavery question, and the difference
between popular sovereignty and "squat.
ter sovereignty" BY the fusion press and
orators the two are COMPOUNDED, and the PEG.
pie generally MAKE no distinction, while no
two doctrines can be more different. "Squat.
ter Sovereignty" is to allow the people OF
the Territories, while in the territorial condi-
ton, to establish slavery or prohibit it by To-
cal law. This is doctrine the democratic
party have never subscribed to, and nothing
Of the sort is found in the Nebraska bill
If Congress, by that bill had g,antcd any
such power to the territorial legislature, it
would by the same act have sanc,ianed the
doctrine that Congress itself could establish
or prohibit slavery in the territories, for
Congress could not grant power it did not
itself possess. GIN the contrary, the doctrine
of the Nebraska bill and of the democratic
party is, that neither Congress nor the ter
ritorial legislature can touch slavery in the
territories while in the territorial condition,
but that the whole subject was disposed of
by the Constitution. Either the Constitution
by its own force, carried slavery into the
territories, or it did not. If it did, then no
congressional or territorial prohibition could
prevent its going there. VI it did not, then
neither Congress nor the territories can cs-
tabish it there. The democratic party gen.
orally hold, and the Supreme Court Of the
L. S. in one or two instances, has decided,
that the territories were by nature free, and
positive, local law, and as the democratic
party stand on the ground that no such To-
cal law can be passed by Congress or the
territorial legislature, it follows tina: the dem
ocratic party stand pledged against legalizing
slavery in Kansas while it continues terri
tory.
The democratic party and the Nebraska
bill thus repudiate 'squatter sovereignty )"
but the doct inc they maintain is popular
sovereignty" And this means, that when
the territories prepared for admission in
to the Union as States, the people Of the ter
ritorics th5H, in framing their constitution
shall have the RICH, to say for themselves
whether they will have slavery or not. Thi.
is right every state in the Union now has
and ever has enjoyed. Without it there i.
no such thing state equality-without it.
the people of the states are not sovereign
within their own borders The doctrine j.
as old as the constitutional is the very foun
da,ion stone Of the Union--and was neve,
questioned until rabid fanatcsrn in the cas-,
OF Missouri, undertook, but sisnally and dis
gracefully failed to strike il down
We have made no attempt to i've the ian
guage or even order in which Mr. B. pre-
scented the subject, and know We have fallen
far sr.oIt vi his cIearness and force: nor s,,.,I
we attempt to sketch the crushing cos-~s>-;
son ne maze between the democratic and IN,
fusion doctrine on the subject OF slavery, a,
illustrated by Dunn's Bin. 1t was master
ly speech throughout, and we only wish
thousands instead Of hundreds had heard il,
The District AiiOrneyshIp...A Word to
democrats.