The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-09-22
CORWlN ON DOUGLAS - DOUGLAS
AGAINST SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.

Well, my friends, have you ever seen the honey
bee, after having slipped honey from the rose
the carnatlon, or the japonca, light down upon
the jamestown weed, and finish its meal? |
have seen it when boy, and l have wondered
why 1t did not commence on that, and top off
with the best. | am about to do something of
that kind. | am coming from the savings of a
great man to the sayings of man not quite so
great. Here Is Speech delivered June 2.
Sir," said he. do not hold the doctrine.
that to exclude any species of property by law
from any Territory, Is a violation of any right
OF property. Do YOU not exclude banks from
most of the Territories 2" Yes, and l was on
the Committee on Territories once, when Wis
consin sent a law with five or six banks. I
voted for them, but the Democratic brethren
associated with me nulifed the law. 1t went
back to the Territory, and squatter sovereignty
that 1t was, ceased to be a law. ado you not !"
continues he, exclude whisky from being in
troduced into large portions of the Territories ?"
Do you take up Washington Territory, and if
there IS tribe of Indians in it, and any man
sells them whisky, they go back to law of
1902, and punish the man for doing it. The
law was made by Congress, yet they say that
Congress has no right to make the laws for the
government of anybody in the Territories. But
the Indian intercourse act, instituted by Jeffer
son himself, is in force in every Territory, and
"Squatter Sovereignty " walls her diadem, and
then IT is in humble compliance for the United
States to make the laws.
If the Territories have the right to make
laws for the Territories, why don't YOU say 10
the people, sell what you please. Squatter Sow.
ereignty is but youth yet, and he had not
time to think about that. Possibly he will think
over these things some day, gather himself up,
and stink away.
The speech continues " Gambling tables,
which are property, recognised as such in many
of the States, are they tolerated in your organic
laws? And has any one found that the ex-
clusion of ardent spirits was violation of any
constitutional privilege or right?" Yet you
will perceive that the gentleman is so certain
of his conclusions, that he puts them in the in
terrogatory form. "And yet il is the case in
a large portion of the territory of the United
States, but there is no cutlery about it."
80 The law also prohibits certain other de-
scriptions of business from being carried on in
the Territories. l am not, therefore, prepared
TO say that, under the Constitution, we have not
| power to pass laws excluding Slavery from a
| Territory"
My brother Democrat, who do you suppose
said that? said something like it, but / did
not say that That was the speech of Stephen
| A. Douglas, in 1850. You can read il in your
| books in the debate.
A voice. Just before he sprung the trapP
Mr.. Corwin. don't say thatVbut / believe
it, though.
Well, now, have given you, my fellow-citi.
zens, the law as it has been decided by the Gov.
eminent for sixty years, upon the doctrine Of
squatfer soyereignty-the decision against it bv
the very man who is now appealed to as the
great leader of that doctrine. He has changed
his opinion-he wants to get back to the go
devil" That is what he is after. Douglas is
! a respectable gentleman, and man of consid