, 1859-09-19

lpQnte WILL ~ aua "AaL WE'LL u AaA w. -
pecial attention t., just now, i. to remind YOU
L you fare not noticed The fact, that the Judge
dies not any longa: ny that the people eau e.
cude s,asery. he does not scy 10 IN the copy.
right essay he did nos say 50 in the speech sbas
le made here, and 50 far as know, snee ats 70,
election to the Senase, be has nerer said ~ he did
at Freeport that the people Of the terIit es can
the territories 10 remaiu free should belicTe that
he stands By that position, be he does not say
it hins, Il, aud want to hold him tdit. He a.
cspes to rome extent the absurd position hare
stated By changing hts language entirely What
he says now is something different in language,
in sense too. 1t is now that the Dred Scott de-
cision, or rather the constitution under that de-
cision, does not carry slavery into the terrl!or.
les Jond tho power Of the people Of the terri
tories to control IL a. otdtr propsrty: lie does
not pow say the people can drivs it out, hut
they csu coutrolit rs other property. Thelan-
s different. Driving horse out Of this lot. is
too plain proposition to be mistaken about;
il is putting him on the nther side of the fence
naughterJ. Grit might be a sort Of exclusith
VI lam frum the lot Il you we're TO kill him aua
lei the worms deyour him but neither Of these
thags tae S hm IS ether
per him, to ride him, TO use him and abuse him,
10 make the most money out Of him "as other
property" hut, please you, What do the men
who arc in faror ..of slavefy want moka than
this7 (Laugbter ndapplause.) What do they
really want, other than that slavery being in the
territories, shall be controlled as other proper
tt. {Renewed applause-)
If thes want anything else, do not conpre-
bend it. I ask your attention TO this, first for
the purpose Of pointing out the change Of ground
the Judge has made; and in the second place,
the Importance Of the change-that that change
is not such as to giEe you gentlemen who want
his popular sovereignty the power TO exclude
the institution or dr'ye it out Ut all know the
Judge sometimes squiuts ut the argument that
in controlling it as other property b. unfrieud1y
legislation they may control it to death, as rou
might in the case Of horse, perhaps, feed him
10 lightly and ride him 50 much that be would
die {cheera and iaughter). But when you, come
to Legislative control, thsre il something morc
to be attended to- I have no doubt, myseif,
that II ths people Of the Territories should un-
dertake to control slave property a. other pro-
perty-that is, control it in such way TINT it
would be the most valuable as property, and
make it bear its just proportion IN the way Of
burdens as property-reafly deal with it as pro-
peHy-the Supreme ceust OF the United States
will say, "God speed you and ameu-" But
undertake. to giye the opinion, Ut least, that if
the Territories attempt By any direct legislation
10 drive the man with his s1aye out of the Ter
ritory, or to decide that his slave is free because
Of bis being taken inIthere, or tota1 him to such
IN extent that be cannot keep him there, the
Supreme Court will unhesitAtiug]y decide all
such legislation unconstitutional, aslong As that
Supreme Court is constructed rs the Dred Scott
Supreme Court is. The FIRST two things they
have already decided, except that there Is lit
tie quibb1e among lawyers between the words
dtesa and decision. They have already decided
a negro cannot be made free by territorial leg
islation.
WHAT is that Dred Scot decision! Judge
Douglas lahors to show that it is one thing,
while think It is altogether different. It is a
long opinion, hut it is alt embodied in this short
staiemcnt: 1.-THE Constitution Of the United
States forbids Congress to deprive man Of his
property, without due process of law; the right
affirmed ID that Constitution; therefore. ii Con-
gress shall undertake to say that mans slaye
is no longer his alavc. when be crosses u Ger.
tain line into territory that is depriving bin Of
bis property, without due process OF Law, and is
Unconstitutional" There is the whole Dred
Scott decision. They add that as Congress can
not do so itself, Congress cannot confer nuy
ritorial legislature to do either Of these things.
is absolutely decided against. It is forgope
conclusion By that court
Now, rs to this Indirect mode by 'sunfriendly
Legislation" all lawyers here will readily under
stund that such . proposition cannot be tofera-
leu lVE u ulQAlEEks utEAu3E u lEHaSl1t4IE C1QuoG
indirectly do that which it cannot accomplish
directly. Then I say any legislation to control
this property, as property for its benefit ns prop
erty, would be hailed By this Dred Scott Su.
preme Court, and fully sustained; but any leg
islation driving slave property out, or destroy
ing it rs property, directly or indirectly, will
most assuredly, by that Court, he held uncon-
stitutionaf.
Judge Douglas says if the constitution carries
slavery into the territories beypnd the power OF
the people Of the territories to control it as 9TH
er property, then it follows logically that every
one who swears to support the constitution Of
the United States, must give that support to
that property. which it needs. And It tie con
stitutou carries slavery into the territories be-
yond the power Of the people to control it as
other property, then it also carries it into the
States, because the constitution is the supreme
law Of the land. Now, gentlemen, il it were
not for my excessive modesty, would say that
told TINT very thing to Judge Douglas quite q
gear ago. This argument is here IN print. and
il it were not for my 1nodesty, rs said, might
call your attention to it. If you read 1t you will
find that not only made that argument, but
made it better than he has made it since.
There i, hewevez, this difference. I say
now, and said then, there Is no sort Of question
| tic right Of the stakeholder to take his slave
| and hold him in the territory, aud saying this,
Judge Douglas himself admits the co1:lusion.
He says ifthat is so, this consequence will fol-
low; and because this consequence would fol-
low, hls argument is, the decision caunat, there
lar sovereignty, and it cannot be possible thar
this great principle has been squelched out in
| this extraordinary way. 1t might be, it it were
I not for the extraordinary consequence ofspoilne
my humbus:" Cheers and !aughter)
Another feature Of the Judges argument
that that decision deals altogether in decIara
| tions Of negatives; that the Constitution does
I not affirm any thing as expouuded by the Drcd
! Scott decision, but it only declares want oI
t power-n total absence Of power, in refeTenceto ia
the territories It seems to be his purpose to
| make the whole Of that decision to result in a
| mere negative declaration OF q want of power
/ in Congress to do anything iu relation to thi,
matter in the territories I know the opinion
Of the Judges states that there il Total absence
ofpower; but that is, unfortunately, not all il
states; for the Judges add that the right OF
| property in slave il distinctly aud expressly
affirmed in the Constitution. 1t does not stop
| at saying that the right of property in q slaYe
is recognized in the constitution, il declared Ia
exist somewhere in the constitution, but says il
is 1gar1ned in the constitution. Its language
equivalent to saying TINT it is embodied and 30
woven into that Instrument that it cannot be
detached without hreating the constitution it,
l Sci. 4u HOEup IL II pNlk Ol Tue CpnStlkM1l0n.
Douglas is ssugutarly unfortunate in his effort
| to make out TINT decision 10 be altogether mega.
tiEc. when the express language at tic vital par.
is that this is distinctly affirmed in tie Consti
tasion. / think myself, and repeat it here
that this decision does not merely carry slarerJ
into the territories, bnt by its logical concl,1.
stos 1t carries it into the States ia which we lire
Une provision Of that constitution is, that Il
shall be the supreme law Of the 1and-I do moi
| quote the ianguagge-any constitution or law ol
| any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
This bred Scott decision says that the right
| Of property in q slave is alrmed in that con,
stltutton which is the supreme Law Of The land
and State constitution Or law to the contrary
notwithstanding. Then say that to destroy 4
thing which is distinctly affirmed and supported
By the supreme law Of the land cvcn By 9
State constitution or law, is violation of thai
| supreme law and there is no escape from it.
In my judgement there is no avoiding that re-
suit, save that the American people shall see
! that constitutions ure better construed than our
constitution is construed in that decision. They
| must take care that it is more faithfully and
| truly carried ont than it is there expounded-
must hasten to a conclusion. Near the be.
| ginning Of my remarks, said that this insidi.
ous Douglas popular sovereignty is tho measure
| publican party, to prevent slaSery from being
nationali1cd il the United States. propose to
ask your attention for little while to some
| propositions ia aflirmance Of that statement.
Iake it Just As it stands, md apply it priu-
ciple; extend and apply that principle else
where and consider ~hera it viii lead you.
now put this proposition that Judge Douglas
popular Sovereignty applied will reopen tho
African Stare &rade; and will demonstrate it