The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1859-04-30
Chicago Herald and Judge Douglas.

every well=inforned politician in the State
i acquainted. We have been opposed to
his principle in regard to the Lecompton
Constitution; we have denied the sound
ness OF the doctrine of his Freeport speech
and are opposed to all the legitimate de
auctions to be drawn from the premises by
him laid down in that speech And, IL De-
ing with Us a principle to adhere the organ
ization. and respect the established usaSes
of the Democratic party We have differed
with him and his friends as to the pro
priety of the course pursued IN his and
their cndeavors to -'rebuke' a Democratic
Administration.
The above is the pith of the reply of
the Chicago Herald to the paragraph of
ours two weeks ago, in which we said the
Herald seemed to have no higher aim than
10 crush out Judge Douglas, while at the
same time, there was no principle advoca-
ted by judge d. which was not also advoca-
ted by the Herald According to the above,
there are .fos,r points on which the Herald
differs with Judge D
J. With regard to the Lecompton Con
stitution-
>. The doctrine of the Freeport speech
). Respecting the usages of the party.
J. The propriety of rebuking the admin
istration.
l. In relation to the first point, the Her
aJ certainly will not '.o,c give Lecompton
as a reason for opposing Judge D., after
the President himself the two successive
PENNSYLVANIA and Ohio, and we know not
how many more state conventions, well
a. many columns of the Chicago Herald
that we could quote, have declared the
Lrcompton issue dead, buried, served up
and done for long ago. Is that issue to be
revived
> the HsraH either does not undertand
the doctrine Of the Freeport speech, or it
wilfuIIy and meanly perverts it Under
the editorial head OF the Herald is a stand
ding article in which thedoctrines of that
sheet respecting slavery is thus laid down
That the Constitution, as interpreted
by the Supreme Court of the United States,
guarantees to the Shareholder tie right to
take his SlgceS into tie IdT5toTfes ard hold
tas1a Hcre rs property: and pledges the Fed
eral Government TO protect him IN the
peaceabie possession of such property IN
How "protect?' BY Congressional leg
isIation? No: the HeraH utterly repudi-
ates the southern notion Of any such pro-
lection How then? BY the courts, says
the Herald Very well With this ex-
PLANTATION, we assert that the Herulds doc
trinc Is identical with that of the famous
Freeport speech The doctrine of that
speech Is simply this That the bred
Scott decision recognizes slaves as proper
ty: that Shareholders therefore have Il
right under the constitution to take such
property into the territories; but that when
once there ii Is property OF no higher grade
than whiskev, gunpowdcr, or any other
property; and as 10 territorial or other
legislature can destroy a mans whiskey
or gunpowdcr 80 no territorial legislature
en- destroy or set free slaves; but such
legislature can legitimately, by unfrlendly
police regulations. make the holding OF
slaves in a territory unpleasant or unproti-
table. Just as stringent and oncTouS license
laws may make the holding OF whISkey
Eunpowcier, or property of that kind UNI
profitable Can the HroW controvert any
Of these positions? But if the territorial
i. sav-. and 80 SAYS the li,rddhta,' it Is the
duty OF the federal government to pro
tcct him in the peaceable possession by
the intervention OF its courts. The Her
ais and the Frecport doctrine are thus
Identical
5. TheHrd point Is presented very vague
y, hut refers, we presume, to the refusal
of judge D. to abide by the decision o.
the Senate democratic caucus when thai
body concluded TO support the Lecomptor
constitution. The Herald and its DANTE
confrerez are the first, we believe, who evel
made obedience TO the behcs,s of King
caucus q democratic test. Certainly Jane:
Buchanan recognizes no such test. Las,
winter III least a dozen democratic caucus
6 were held at each of which it was re-
solved to stick To the old democratic
doctrine Of a horizontal and ad ralorcm
tariff James Buchanan and the whole
democratic delegation in Congress from
Pennsylvania, however, refused to abide
iy that decision. and bolted and utterly
:epudiatcd the caucus dictation. Douglas
did that same thing, and nothing more
when lie refused TO let the caucus dictate
his course on the Lecompton question
Only there was this difference In the
Lacompton case, Douglas and the caucu:
both agreed as to the principle, that the
reople Of the territory should be allow &c
10 make constitution in their own way
The disagreement merely involved the
fsct. whether the constitution was made
by the people or not-and the facts, as III
innate events proved, was clearly on the
side of Judge y. But in the tariff cas-
the disagreement involved the great pri,l
c.Dle, both the Baltimore and Cincinnati
conventions having declared in favor o
al ro'5rsIa duties as the only correct dem
ocraJic mode of levying q tariff, while the
President and the Pennsylvania delegation
rapudiated that plank of the democrats
platform, and held out for the old fedora
wing doctrine of specific duties. Now i
Judge D. is 10 be read out for contumacy
10 King caucus, what will the Herald d,
.yith James Buchanan, Bigier, Florenc,
Owen Jones. &c
+. The last point-in reference to rebr
king the administration lis all Cannon
Ten months ago Judge Douglas came hom
f'om Washington and announced that he
should canvass this State on the square is
sue al democrats against republicans-tha
both the administration and himself nd
United that Lccompton WAS dead an,
aside from that issue he had no disoore,
mont with the President But notwith
stlnding this formal announcements. an,
notwithstanding Judge u. during the er
tire canvass which ensued, studiousl
avoided any reference to the President @
cabinet until coaded into il near the clos