The Nevada Democrat., 1860-10-20
Merada 2emotrat.


Having answered one or two questions
propounded by persons in the crowd, Mr..
Douglas said
Yet | am in no wise annoyed by these
questions, aud l now intend to answer one
which find published 10 the Commercial
of te-day, accompanied with very earnest
and anxious appeal 10 me to answer it.
Lewis D. Campbell here called ont: Il
advise YOU not to notice the Commercial"
| Mr.. Douglas-No matter; will answer it..
And first, permit me to read the question.
1t is as follows
"What is the remedy of the people of the
Territories, provided the Supreme Court finally
determines that the measure of restriction inn
posed by the Constitution upon Territorial
Governments is such that those Governments
cannot abolish slavery within, or in any way
legally exclude it from their limits ]"
How very anxious they must be on that
subject. [Gre at laughter.1 They want TO
know what the remedy is If the Courts shall
decide that the Territory cannot exclude
slavery. In the first place will not do the
Supreme Court of the United States the in
Justice to believe that they are going to
stultify Themselves, much less TO violate the
Constitution. / have too much respect for
the highest judicial tribunal on earth to
even suppose that they can be guilty of
such All act. will not make the supposi-
tOn until they shall have perpetrsted the
act. assume that no such decision ever
can be made by any Court.
In the second place, the Supreme Court
of the United States have, in fact, decided
that very question in favor of my opinion.
NJ, g. th.. Co. mil ha
Constitution of the United States You will
find that 1t defines who are slaves, by what
authority persons are held as slaves, and in
what cases they shall be rendered up when
they escape. A. slave, within the meaning
of the Constitution, ls II quote], IA person
held to service or labor in one State, under
the laws thereof" hence O slave is person
held 10 service or labor in the State. uIder
the laws thereof-not under Federal au-
thority. not under an Act Of Congress, not
under the Constitution Of the United States,
but held in the State, "under the laws there
Of" Can anything be palmer than the
words of the Constitution upon the subjecH
So much for the question, so far as it re-
lates to the States.
Now, let us inquire how it stands with
reference to the Territories. The first Fu
gitive Slave Law, which was passed in 1898,
and approved by George Washington, pro.
vdes that person held to service or labor
in any of the States, or either of the organ
lied Territories under the laws thereof es-
Gaping therefrom. shall be delivered up
Thus it appears that slaves are delivered up
to the States and Territories where they
are held, under the laws thereof The Fu-
gitive Slave Act in itself declares that
slaves are held in the Territory under the
laws of the Territory. Now, bear in mind
that that old Fugitive Slave Law is still in
force, and that the Act of 1850 is only an
amendment to it, providing that slaves,
when arrested. shall be taken before Com
missioner of the United States instead of
before Justice of the Peace. That is the
chief. the principal alteration, and the law
still stands as it was passed in 1893, dcclar-
ing that wherever slaves exist in Terri
tory, they are held under the laws thereof
If that Act of Congress is constitutional,
Popular Sovereignty in the Territories
clearly exists according to the Constitution
and the laws. No man can deny that con-
clusion, provided the Fugitive Slave Act is
constitutional.
Fifteen or twenty years ago case arose
in Pennsylvania known as the case of Prigg
VS.. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and in that case the Court decided that the
Fugitive Slave Law was constitutional in
all its parts. Again, only one year ago,
the Supreme Court made decision. in the
case of Booth, of Wisconsin, declaring that
the Fugitive SlaveLaw is constitutional in
all its parts. Thus you find that the Fugi-
tive Slave Law, as it now stands on the
statute book, is constitutional in all its pro-
visions. One of its provisions is that, if o
person is held to service or labor in any of
the States, or in either of the organized
Territories, according to the laws thereof.
From this it is plain that slavery exists in
the Territories the same as in the States,
under the laws thereof If the people want
slavery they will pass laws in favor of it;
if they do not want it they will pass laws
against it.
But the Supreme Court did not leave this
matter open to inference when they deliv-
cred their opinion in the case of Prigg VS..
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
Court, in delivering their opinion, said that
"tbe state of slavery is a mere municipal
regulation founded upon and limited to the
range of Territorial laws" That is the
precise language of the Court, and it goes
as far in behalf Of Popular Sovereignty as