The Nevada Democrat., 1859-11-09
DOUGLAS ANSWERS ms REVIEWER.


In the Cleveland Plaindealer we tnd a full
report of the speech of Senator Douglas, at Ok
ford, Ohio, to ten thousand people. We ex-
tract that part Of his speech which refers to At
torney General Blacks review Of his Popular
Sovereignty article, published in the Presidents
organ:
It is true that have been represented by my
enemies as having attacked the Supreme Court
and the Dred Scott decision in my advocacy Of
Popular Sovereignty. / do not often notice
these attacks, but will give one moment to an
assault recently made, out of respect for the
high authority from which 1t Is said to have
come. In the cars this morning, friend hand
ed me q pamphlet entitled, "ObseryatiOns on
Senator Douglas views of Popular Sovereign
ty, as expressed in Harper's Magazine for Sep
tember, 1882 The pamphlet Is anonymous,
but the newspapers, especially the New York
Herald, published II as written by Jerry Black,
the same man who last year wrote letters to III
nois, urging federal officeholders TO support
Aboltionists to Office in preference to the regu-
lar Democratic ticket. Whether he is the au-
thor or not l have no means of knowing, ex-
cept the fact that it is SO stated in the newspa-
pers, aud the additional fact that the gentle
man who furnished the pamphlet to me received
il under Jerry Blacks frank. l will read the
last sentence of his pamphlet first
1--WE are called upon to make a contest at
cessary and hopeless, with the judicial authority Of the
nation. We object to it, We will not obey Mr. Douglas
when he commands to assault the Supreme Court of
the United States We believe the Court to be right aud
Mr.. Douglas wrong"
Again he says:
an he is elected President, he must the laws
faithfully executed. Does he think he can keep that
oath by fighting the judiciaryr'
This, bear it in mind pretends to be a review
of my exposition of Popular Sovereignty in
Hsrper's Magazine. As we rode through the
streets saw the boys circulating that article
by the hundred and perhaps by the thousand,
and invite you to look into it and see if there
is word of eensure of the Supreme Court or
its decision. Not one word. The author of the
pamphlet knew, when he made that charge
against me, that it was an Infamous falsehood.
care not who he is. There Is no man in Amer
ica who has made as many speeches in defence
of the Court against the assaults Of the Repub.
lican party as have.
Last year, In the Illinois canvass, | made
just one hundred and thirty speeches, in every
one of which vindicated the Court. The man
does not live who can meet me, look me In the
eye, and pretend to be honest. and assert what
is insnuated in that paper. The author knows
II to be false. If you look at the article in Hay.
per's Magazine, which he pretends to review,
you will find that so far from assaiing the Su-
preme Court or the Dred Scott decision, quote
that decision to prove that my doctrine OF Pop
ular Sovereignty is the true doctrine of the
Constitution, aud do prove 1t, and yet the au-
thor of this pamphlet dare not quote word to
show that his charge that l assail the Court Is
true. What can be thought of the man who
will prostitute q high Government Office by wri-
ting deliberate falsehoods to mislead the Amer
ican people No wonder he made il anony-
NOUS No wonder he did not sign his name to
it. When write / write my own name, and
when speak speak in language that cannot
bo misunderstood and every one knows that
am responsible for what say. l do not assault
personal enemies through anonymous PAM
phlets. do not say who the author ia, but
whoever he is he is ealumniator, and knew
that what he was writing was tissue of false
hoods from beginning to end
will notice another statement In this pam.
phlet. for l understand that Ohio and the North
western States are to be food ID with it. Speak
ing of me again, he says:
'e claims for the Territorial governments the right
of fconhscatng private property on the ground that those
governments sOureigt-have uncomfortable andin
dependent power all their internal affairs"
Now, this is deliberate falsehood. never
claimed that Territory possessed the power of
connscating private property. deny that pr-
yate property can be confscated either by a
Territory or by State, or by the Federal Gov
ernment 1t cannot be confscated under our
Constitution by any power on earth except 1t is
taken away by due process of law. This state
ment contains double falsehood; first, that
advocate the cOn6scaton of private property;
secondly, that justify 1t on the ground that
Territory was O sovereign power. /
never said that q Territory was q sovereign
power. l never uttered such a piece Of non
sense, in any speech or report that ever made
or wrote, Vand the author of this statement
knows that never did, for he occupies the last
T. n -
over again that the Territory was not sove-
reign power. He quotes from my report as
Chairman of the Committee on Territories in
the Senate 10 1856, the following:
1.-THE sovereignty of Territory remains In deydno
pended in the United States ia fTa for The people until
hey shall b Gd#'ited into he Union as State IN e
they admitted TO enjoy and exercise all the
rights and privileges Of self government IN borination
The Coadition OF the United States, and oREDANcE
Law, passed by Congress In pursuance Of
that instrument These rights and privileges all de-
rived from the Constitution through The act Cogre and
must exercised and enjoyed In subjecion to all the
limitations and restrictions which that Constitution i'm
poses"
affirm every word of that extract now. The
Territory is no more sovereign than were the
Cnlnniea snunrnign bsfnro the revolution hut
while the Territories are not sovereign they
have the inalenable right of self government
Of managing their own affairs and domestic in
stitutons the came as the Colonies had prior to
the revolution. Thus you SEQ that here has
been deliberate attempt to misrepresent my
position, the author Of the article knowing that
l did not hold the opinions he attributed to me.
After accusing me of a desire to confscate
private property he goes on to say:
son the other hand the President the Judges Of the
Supreme Court, nearly all the Democratic members Of
Congress- the whole Of the parry South, and very large
majority North, penetrated with conviction that
such power vested in Territorial Legislature and
that those who desire to cOnscae private property Of
any kind must wait until they get Constitutional Con-
vention the machinery of state GoTsrnment in their
hands"
According to this new doctrine, before you
can confscate private property you must wait
until you have State Government, and the
inference is. that when you have State Gov
ernment you may confscate it. Do you admit
that the State government OF Ohio can confs-
cate any mans private property in this State :?
deny this heresy that you can confscate pro-
perty when Territory becomes State any