The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-09-22
THE DISPUTE SETTLED.


We copied from the Richmond Enquirer the other
day an article in which it construed portion of
Judge Douglass late speech at Freeport intended
to point out defects in the Nebraska Kansas BILL
and to intimate the willingness of the senator him
self to cooperate in procuring from Congress the
passage of laws for the protection of slave property
in the Territories We controverted these infer
ences of the Enquirer in our paper Of Sunday
ing.
And, behold, that very mornings mail brought
papers from Illinois containing a speech delivered
by Judge Douglas at Jonesboro' on Wednesday last,
repudiating the differences Of the Enquirer. We
make extract from it below. Is it asking too
much Of the fairness and eandor Of the Enquirer to
request it to copy this article?
Judge Douglass competitor had propounded to
him the following interrosatory
If the slaveholdng citizens of United States Terri
tory should need and demand congressional legislation
for the protection of their slave property in such Terri
tory, would you member Of Congress- vote for or
against such legislation Z"
To this inquiry Judge Douglas replied as we quote
below; from which it will be seen that he expressly
means to bold Congress to strict non-intervention
and makes the noninterference of Congress pledged
in the Nebraska bill the ground of now decla-
ring that, under the Nebraska-Kansas bill and the
bred Scott decision, the people of the Territories
are at liberty to exercise the Fright" and power of
excluding slavery: 81
answer him, it is fundamental article in the demo-
cratic creed that aef shaft BE- fJeelce noiereo,
6y Congress IN u& The States and Territories (Cheersl Mr.
Lincoln could have found answer TO his question in
the Cincinnati platform. lApplause The democratic
party have always stood by that great principle of
interference noninterventon by Congress with slavery
in States and Territories alike stand on that platform
NOE Applause Now, desire to call your attention to
the fact that Mr. Lincoln himself don define his own posi-
ton on that question How does he stand that question
de put the question to me at Feeport whether would
vote to admit Kansas into the Union before she had nine
ythree thousand four hundred and twenty nabtants
answered him at once that It having been decided that
kansas had population enough Tor slave State she had
enough for tIro state, answered uncquivocally and
put the question to him, will you vote for or against
the admission of Kansas before she had that population
lie would not answer. To-day he has called my atten-
lion to the fact that my answer that question was
not quite plain enough and yet he has answered il him
self and he comes and puts the question in re-
gard to congressional nteyraace IN State or Territory
answer directly that he has not answered that question
yet ask if a man has any right in common decency
IN these public discussions to put question to his oppo-
nent that he won't himself When it is pressed
home upon him put The question three times in his
presence, whether he would vote to admit Kansas when
the people apply with constitution of their making
aud adoption Under circumstances that lust fair and
nexceptonable can't get his answer nor can get his
answer on this question about congressional ieeace sc
Slaoey o, Tie territories by making Stare code II is true
Inc goes on to argue the question: whether under the de-
cision Of the Supreme Court it is the duty Of man TO
vote for slave code in the Territory Whether he thinks
it his duty under the decision that is made and If he be-
ieves in that decision he would be periured if
nc didn't go and vote.
Ny doctrine is that while the decision is there recog
I'M he Terri yctn f.
ter they have got there you need affirmative law to make
that right Of any value That doctrine not only applies
TO slave property but to all other property Chief Jus.
tce fancy places il on the ground that slave Is
equality with all other property Suppose one Of
your merchants should move to Kansas and open Ii
quor store he has the right to take his liquors there and
open store, but the mode of selling them must be pre-
scribed by local legislation If the local legislation is
unfrendly drives you out just eectuaIy with your
liquors as if there was constitutional provision against
liquors SO Me absence Of local legislation protect Stare prop
etv IN Territory ercuis practically and as ecudl as
there posture constitutional provision against Hence
assert that under that decision, you cannot maintain sagery
day Territory against muiiig people, waioa ieady
legislation. VHc peoie are opposed IT, your right buren,
oss, and useless II they are for it, they viii support
and encourage it. Hence we come back to the prac-
teal question, if the people Of Territory want slavery,
they will have it, but u y don't rant you can force i
upon them That is practical question 1t is the great
principle upon which our institutions rest am willing,
therefore, to take the decision of the Supreme Court as IL
is pronounced by that august body not stopping to in
quire whether would have the decision the same way
not, have had many decision made against me
when practising lawyer that did not like but
much bound by it il had liked IL when it
adopted. Did you lawyer who lost his
and liked the decision, client defeated in court
who did not think the decision unjust Yet you are
just much bound by it as il you for it originally
In other words in government of laws like ours we
must sustain the constitution fathers made it,
maintain the rights Of tho States guaranteed under the
constitution sustain the constitutional authorities as
they exist and then will have peace and harmony be-
the different States and sections of this glorious
Union Applause
Thus, his argument is, that because Congress is
pledged to 'non-intcrference, non-ntervention in
States and Territories alike" and because the bred
Scott decision does not supply positive protection,
therefore the people of the Territories if majority
of them opposed to slavery, have the right to
put down slavery in the Territories by unfriendly
legislation; and that tho right of STAKEHOLDER to
take his property in Territory where a majority OF
it's people against it, is barren, worthless and
useless"
& In other words, as Congress cannot interfere and
the bred Scott decision afirms only am abstract
right, unless majority Of the people Of territory
be favorable to slavery, the of the stakeholder
who may be beguiled there by these measures is
desperate and hopeless; FOR not ouly has he rem
edy for injuries inflicted upon him, but there is
source from which the remedy can be solicited or
obtained. To this "lame and impotent conclusion
hao I,,Ie ~