Daily national Democrat., 1858-11-14
1ailp glatlonaI Democrat.

The WHOLE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THAT
FREEpoRT SPEEcn.-The Lecompton organs
have pounced upon Senator Douglas for ut
tering in his Freeport speech what is the
ouiptessence of Southern doctrine, as it is no
less the true doctrine.
The following article from the Richmond
Enquirer shows concusively that Douglas
and all the great leaders of the Democracy in
the South perfectly agree on the power of
Territorial legislatures over the subject of
slavery. We find the article of the Enquirer
copied in the Sacramento Union:
Judge Douglas is explaining existing legis-
lation; he is showing how, under the bred
Scott decision, the rights Of the South under
and conferred by the Constitution are mere
empty and valueless rights. lie says: "These
Doliee regulations can only be established bv
local legislation; and il the people are oppo.
sed to slavery they will elect representative ves
TO that body, who will, by unfriendlv legisla-
ton, effectually prevent the introduction of
IT into their midst" This is no new doctrine.
it is not original with Judge Douglas it was
nointed out by Orr and stephens, when dis
cussing the Kansas bill.
On this point, Hon. James L. Orr is sinru.
lorlv clear and explicit His views were given
in debate in the House of Representative
on the power of Congress over slavery in the
Territories in December, 1856. Thers is a
remarkable similarity between the views OF
Douglas in his Freeport speech, in 1853 and
the words of Orr, in Congress, in 1856 MIR.
Orr said:
81 say, although deny thst squatter so.
Vereignty exists in the Territories of Kansas
and Nebraska by virtue of this bill, it is a
matter practically of little consequence whe.
ther it does or not; and think shall be
able to satisfy the gentleman of that The
gentleman knows that, in every slaveholding
community of this Union, we have local le
gislation and local police regulations apper-
tanning to that institution, without which the
institution would not only be valueless but
curse 10 the community. Without them the
Shareholder could not enforce his rights when
invaded by Others and if on had no local
legislation for the purpose of giving protec
tion, the institution would be of no value
can appeal to every gentleman upon this
floor who represents a slaveholding constitu
eney to attest the truth Of what have stated
upon that point
Now, the legislative authority Of Terri
tory is invested with discretion to vote for
or against laws We think they ought to
pass laws in every Territory, when the Ter
ritory is open to settlement, and Shareholders
so there, to protect slave property. But if|
they decline to pass such laws, what is the
remedy? None, sir. If the majority of the
people are opposed to the institution, and ifl
they do not desire it engrafted upon their
Territory, all they have to do is simply to
decline to pass laws in their Territorial iegis-
Iature for its protection and then 1T is as we'll
excluded as if the power were invested in
she Territorial legislature, and exercised by
them to prohibit It, Now, ask the gentle
man, what is the practical Importance to re-
cult frem the agitGtien and discussion of this
question as 70 whether squatter sovereignty
does Or does not exist ? Practically, it is a
matter of little moment"
In reply to a query frem Humphrey Mar
shall, Of Kentucky, and as showing the all
important nature Of ltcal legislation, Mr. Orr
said
Suppose party in a Territory inveigles
away his slave, and there is no law making it
a criminal offense, how do you reach him
Suppose an Individual harbors your slave
while in the Territory, what remedy have
you against him? What remedy have YOU
TO enforce the rights Of the owner against
trespassers and intermediates, unless you have
a local legislature to pass laws to enforce
these rights?
Again, he said:
at is not the right of property in slaves l
speak OF as requiring protection, but it is the
local legislation Of the Territory to prevent
that property being trespassed upon, tamper-
ed or interfered with by others"
Are not the views Of Douglas and Orr iden-
tical? If Orr was right in 1856, Douglas is
right in 1858. Douglas presents his views as
the settled fact on the exact premises occu-
pied by Orr We commend the extracts to
the press generally.
As the ease is one peculiarly interesting to
the South, we make room for two short ex.
tracts from speeches of Alexander H. Ste.
phens, of Georgia, and Samuel A. Smith, of
Tennessee. In June, 1856, Mr. Stephens, in
Congress said:
Although my own opinion is that the peo-
pie, under the limitations of the Constitution.
have not the rightful power to exclude slave
ry so long as they remain in Territorial
condition, vet | am willing that they NAV de
termine it for themselves, and when they
please ] shall never negative any law they
may pass If it is the result Of fair legislative
expression of the popular will-neveri lam
willing that the Territorial legislature NAV
act upon the subject when and how they may
think proper"
This is stronger than Douglas Stephens
gives positive opinion. Douglas confines
h'mselft statement of what may be done,
outside of his wish, pro or con-
Mr. Smith, in the House cfRepresentativeS
on the 9Th Of June, 1856, saidS
al have never regarded the difference of
opinion between Northern and Southern gen.
uemen upon "Squatter Sovereignty" as of
any Importance. | have held that in Ter.
ntorlal capacity the settlers had not the right
10 exclude slavery Yet majority of the
PeSye IN Territory will decide the ques-
Sloh aiter all. In Territory we must have
iaWs not to establish, but to protect the in
s'ltuuon of slavery, and if majority of the
people oi Territory are opposed to the in.
sInnuen they will refuse TO pass laws for its
Pro'eeuon, and it will not 90 there. If, on
que contrary, they are in favor of it, they will
paSs Jaws Tor its protection, and it will 60
Gie'e' tI' IL viii go there or not, according to
T e popular sentiment of the people of the
II senator Douglas is for the exclusion of
slavery in the Territories 50 oro the south
~" people represented by such men as Orr
0'ePnenS and Smith. If Douglas language
"a" oe tortured into such meaning, so can the
iunguage of Orr, Stephens, and Smith for
th ho cannot see any difference of fact between