The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1859-10-12
{ a4snsiss dFrsm the Constitutional
JUDGE DeUGL as s sP ECaIATWeesTER

Ohio, on the 10th instah5 as the cTown1f ef-
fort of his recent series Of addresses in defence
| of the novel theories of sovernuient and con-
stitutional law contained a Ills copyrs ht article
in monthly magazine. - VIZ -, -, ~ ~
We are favored in the report to which We
refer with another synopsis of the Senator's
! fam liar doctrines of Popular Sovereignty, and
learn that after discussing those doctrines at
considerable length be thought proper to no.
! tice the article which anp1afed in our columns
on the 10Th inst, in which his paper in Har-
per-. Magazine was reviewed. The language
of that article was studiously courteous and re-
spectful to Judge Douglas, personally. His
talents were acknowledged, the merits by
which her has raised himself to his present
position commended, and the his hest respect
expressed foi the Office of United States Sena-
tor The article dealt only with Judge Doug
las doctrine 1t expressed the belief that that
doctrine is anti-Democratic, unconstitutional,
dangerous and reprehepsible, and undertook to
expose its many fallacies OF fact and reasoning,
with the earnestn.ss Lfsincere conviction, and
with the courtesy and coolness which should
ever distinguish the intercourse of gentlemen,
no matter how widely they may differ or Eow
antagonistic may be their interests raai7
We regret to say that Judge Douglas, if the
report of his speech be accurate, has not OBJ
served towards the writer of our article thu
and language which that gentleman observed
towards him. He had descended to the use of
abusive epithets and coarse expressions of the
most unbecoming and unwarrantabe character,
and has mistaken the vernaeular of billings
gate for argument. We note this la1nentable
fact with regret 1t gives us no pleasure to
see man occupying a position as elevated as
that of United States Senator degrade that posi-
ton by unseemly behavior either in or out Of the
Senate chamber an | we shall not provoke a
repetition of such disgraceful conduct by the
use of one word of reto~t; nor shall we insult
the writer of the article to which Judge Doug
las takes exception by undertaking to defend
him against the Judges gross and undignified
invective. ar tsF s-.s.s
The distinguished gentleman to whom Judge
Douglas attributes the authership of our article,
and against whom he directs the shafts of his
vituperation, needs no defence cf ours Ar
rt ws from such culver can never reach that
eminent jurist and courteous gentleman His
high and unsullied reputation, and the esteem
of his fellow citizens. furnish him with a triple
shield against ali such assaults and all such as,
sailants. - - II 9sss ~ =o Ho7f
Judge Douglas evidently forgets that his
mere assertion that any statement IS "a base
falsehood. - OF that any man, however lofty or
lovely his station, is "a base ealumniater," is
utterly ,yalueless, particularly where the facts
speak for themselves and are within the reach
of every one whois at all interested in the con-
troversy. 1t does not matter how many speech
es Judge Douglas made in Illinos-whether
one hundred and thirty or one hundred tlous-
md and thirty-in which he "defended the
Supreme Court" We believe thet in his
magazine article and his speeches at Columbus
and Cincl natl he has taken differ mt course,
and instead of defending that high tribunal,
has attempted to misrepresent its decisions and
defy it's authority and jurisdiction. ss s...t 10
1t is certain that Judge Douglas views on
territorial sovereignty are against the solemn
opinions as delivered by every judge of the
Supreme Court of the United States in the
Dred Scott case. Seven of those judges de-
iberately decided in that case tha Congress
had no constitutional power to exclude slavery
from Territory 10y. law, and the two dissent
ing judges distinctly repudiated the doctrine
of territorial sovereignty, and maintained that
that power was vested exclusively, as regards
the Territories, in the Congress of the United
States Thus Judge Douglas as regards his
doctrine of territorial soy ereignty, finds him
self in direct antago1ism with the unanimous
opinion of the Supreme Court of the Union
1t is for others than Judge Douglas to decide
whether this is or is not his true position
The removal of the copyright restriction from
his article, or the payment of 20 is, plac, 5
that article within the reach of every American
citizen, and, a little patience and careful exami.
nation of its studiously ambiguous language, 1T
may become comprehensive We are perfect
ly ready to appeal to the Judgment of the
people as to whether The comments contained
in the review of it which was published in our
columns are or are not unjust, exaggerated, or
unwarranted. 5aT hiss savt.1f.tf f...s..E.I -ss u
We can easily imagine the modification, and
annoyance which Judga Douglas must have
felt when he found that his sophisms were ex-
posed and refuted, and his first essay on con-
s. itutional law proved to be filled with eyre
gious blunders and evidences of the most ar
rant ignorance. We can ina gind that he was
petulant and angry, particularly as the expos
ure' took place when he was most anxious to
pass imsef as an infallible expouncer of the
science and practice of government. He was
quite wrong, However, to lose his temper 1t
was clear evidence of his own conviction that
he was worsted,5 Whenever one of the parties
to a controversy abandons facts and arguments
and resorts to abuse and scurrilous epithets, it
is pretty conclusive proof that he is beaten.-
If success in controversy is made to depend on
superior skill in the use of coarse laneuage4and
hard names, there is, no fsh.woman or no
plug-ugly who might not completelyoverwhelm
Judge Douglas. '-q ? 'l's-2Ss = aaGi-ii e I
We are inclined charitably to forgive the
Judge. hoping that On many occasions In the
future ON which, if he continues his present
course, be must expect to qe severity handled
by Democratic writers, he will not again vio-
late decorum, nor again violate decorum; nor
again forget what is due to the Office of Sena-
tor by the use of unseemly language. andd de-
termine never again to allow himself to depart
from the usages of gentlemen. ; S.l-5e,I :.
As Judge Douglas has not Thought proper to
attempt to refute the grounds taken in tbs ar
ticle published in our issue of the 10th instant,
we do not feel called on to reiterate the opih-
ions therein expressed. or to do more than say
that there is no one word or syllable in that ar
ticle of the truth of which we ase not perfect
ly convinced, or which we have any idea that
the writer has heeastswisA to recall. (, vgF