Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1859-09-09
The Territorial "SlaN~-,=-
of Mr.. Dougla leave

In commenting upon Mr.. IA ""o
recent speech at Rockland, tn s
Graf" of tina, place says: NAxM
d" 1t is true that Mr.. Douglas acceF ~ ].
bred Scott decision, but he does not believe
that decision, nor the Constitution of the
United States, establishes slavery in the Ter
ritories beyond the power of the people to
control it, and Mr.. Washburn knows it.
Closely following upon the quotation which
MIR. Washburn read, showing Mr.. Douglas
assent to the bred Scott decision. occurs the
following language addressed to the slave
holders of New Orleans
All citizens of the United States. no mat
ter whether they come from the North or
South, from free State or slave State, can
enter territory with their property on an
equal footing.
But Iapprehend when you arrive there with
your property, you are subject to the local
lac Of the Territory. How can your slave
property be protected without local law
The Constitution gives you Il right to 60 into
a territory and carry your slave property
with you; but it does not punish any man
for stealing your slave property when you
get there.
Let me ask you, as Southern men, can you
hold slaves anywhere unl less protected by the
local law? Would not the inaction OF the
local legislature, its refusal to provide slave
code, or to punish offences against that spe-
cies of property, exclude slavery just as Ell
tectually as a constitutional prohibition p
W ould it not have that effect in Louisiana
and in every other State? No one will deny
it. Then, let me ask you, if the people of
territory refuse to pass slave code, how are
you gong to make them do it? When you
give them power to legislate on all rightful
subjects Of legislation, it becomes question
Tor them to decide and not for me.
50, then, there is nothing alarming in con-
sentlng to the decision Of the Supreme Court
in the Drei Scott case. II the people OF u
Territory are opposed to slavery, they can
prevent II from getting a foOthol! by passing
no laws to protect 1t, and neither the Su-
preme Court nor the Constitution can force
1t upon them. T at is the doctrine of Mr.
Douglas-tiic doctrine of popular sovereign
ty.-Rock'aad Democrat
Ies--but therein lies the deception
and injquity Of the whole thing. No
LOCAL LAW Is NECESSARY, to the pro-
lection of tae shareholders, if you estab-
fish II is as fac. that his slave is
property in national Construction.
In tina, case the Sanreme Con,, will dc.
eide a, once that it is as much larceny
to steal slavo a. 10 s,o,l borse Tbe
laws of Maine daz No, say lin 80 many
worls ,,h,, !. i b,crnv n s.a,l , hors.
-bu, horse is "prope,,n and i, is
larceny tn s,o,l nrono,,, ys,,ber ~.
,i.re nor tle Aoyse i e.ncc;allv mention.
ed IN toc local law-hut as both are
"propeY,v" they both fall under the pro-
lection of the law which saws it is LARGE
nv to steal the goods CT cha,tsI," ofan-
other Mr.. Douglas knows this would
be the position of ,h,nss-he knows that
n, local LEGISLATURE eau erriude from
this condition of ..proDer,y." a save.
holders chattel. il the Cons,;,p,;,n
makes it propei.y-and knowing this.
he is Deliberately Alternating To deceive
the people.
We cite the following from the CEN
trail democratic or,an. the yYasbir e,on
Constitution. which is at the tame F., ,me
the ,rg IN OF the siaveholding democra-
cyv to show that THE StAVE.UOI D.
TER DOCTRINE than tina, slaves arc
..nrone,,vo nnder tho G,,s,;,,,;o, 81