Gazette and sentinel., 1860-09-22

CIlCt utl"tNl - III Nbpe
between the friends of the bill. have shown
YOU the decision of the Supreme Court. we
have arrived ut a point where there Shouiu
have been harmony and peace. We nave ar
rived at the point agreed upon. Inc only
point of difference had been determined by
the highest judicial authority of the onlted
States, and the equality of the rights OF per,
sons and propertv of all the citizens would
have been recognized, stamped by the seal OF
iudicial authority, and we would not have had
any controversy or agitation except by Il niue
band Of Abolitionists, whom the cohser'atlre
masses would have subdued. Ihe hePuoiI-
cans, of course, traduced the Court, nut II was
never to nave been expected tnat any lrienu
of the Kansas bill-any one pledged 10 ao!Ie
nv the decision, would attempt to override
that decision. "What," you VIII say 'ho-
body disputed that at all"
T,r will think that now YOU will have time
TO turn your attention to the great material
interests of the country. You have laid the
spectre of slavery agitation! Not at all I'M
happily, not at all!
The opinion of the Supreme Court was de-
livered in 1857. Everything was quiet until
1853, when the senator from Illinois, Mr..
Douglas, was a candidate for reelection to the
Senate from the State of Illinois, and then for
the first time in the history of American poll
ties we find the opinion advanced that there
was "A mode by which subordinate authorities
may override the opinion of the highest judi
ciai tribunal in the Union. There we find no
purpose to abide by the agreement to take the
judicial decision of their Constitutional right,
but the declaration is made that Il subordinate
authority may coniscate or exclude from the
Territory the property of citizens Of Southern
States, without regard to the opinion of the
Supreme Court. l don't want to do injustice,
so | will read 1t. 1t is short:
In a debate between Senator Douglas and
Mr.. Lincoln the former said THE next
question propounded to me by Mr.. l.. is, can
the people of Il territory, in any lawful way
against the wishes of the United States, ex-
clude slavery from their limit prior 20 the for
nation of "A State Constitution? l answer
emphatically, as Mr.. L. has heard me answer
IL hundred times, from every stump in Illinois,
that in my opinion the people of a territory
can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from
their limits prior 10 the formation OF n State
Constitution"
That is the question put to him, and that
was the question We agreed in the Kansas bill
to refer to the Supreme Court of the United
States. That is the question decided as have
lust shown YOU. bv the Supreme Court of the
ShANtd u " ~ BN'Na
in which they say that neither Congress nor a
Territorial Legislature has the power to ex-
clude slavery but that the only right Is the
right coupled with the duty to guard ard pro-
tect it. | nave shown YOU that Mr.. Douglas
agreed to submit the question to that Court,
and that Mr.. Douglas acquiesced In the de-
cision.
Mr.. Douglas, further on, says the question
is an abstract one. An abstract question A
question involving the Union, and involving
the rights of half of them. 1t "matters not
what the Supreme Court may hereafter decide,
the people may lawfully exclude it." L have
shown you in 1856, in the Senate of the
United States, he said, IF the Constitution
authorizes it to 90 there, no power on earth
can take it away" L would hke to see these
two statements reconciled. Applause. J
Whether the Constitution did authorize it TO
20 there, was a question that he agreed to re-
fer to the Court and then after the Court de-
cides, he SAYS no matter how the Court may
decide, the people may lawfully exclude slavery
from the territories and these declarations
remain uncontradicted and not taken back
and he asserts today US he asserted before,
that the people of II territory may exclude
slave property of the Southern people prior TO
the formation of a State Corstitution-that a
Territorial Legislature may do it. Hence,
he saws, 'no matter what way the Supreme
Court NAV hereafter decide as to the abstract
question whether slavery may or may not go
into a territory under the Constitution, the
people have the lawful means to introduce or
exclude it, as they please, for the reason that
slavery cannot exist a day or an hour any
where, unless it is supported by local police
regulations!
/ should have thought that the ghost of the
In A. notr Af that ahnsnI hill
would have risen up TO prevent such a de-
claration as this! (Applause.)
l say, gentlemen, in answer to the accusa'
ton made against me of maintaining thi:
doctrine, and which 1 have disproved, l say il
is not statesmanlike to agree to refer a Consti
%tutional point to the Supreme Court OF YOU
country, and then, when the Supreme Court
of your country has decided it, say, 1t mat
tiers not what way hereafter decided" the
power remains.
A voice-"Thats higher law"
That looks almost as much like higher Law
as some higher law we have heard of further
east. If l were disposed to initiate an emf
nent but a bad example, l might say there i
no honest man in the United States, as he saiC
of me, who can deny that the agreement wa
made that the decision was made in accor
dance with our view of the Constitution anC
that the agreement has been violated by tn
Senator and his personal adherents, who agreed
to abide by it.
Fellow-citizens, the serious ~indispositior
under which l have labored for some days
making it Utmost impossible for me at times t.
see the assemblage before me, makes me un
able to divide off my speech in proper proper
tions, as l should desire to do, considering tn
time 1 have already occupied your attention
You will excuse me if, being somewhat desul
tory in my remarks, l omit som topic T.
which / should call your attention.
How is this question met ? Have i argued
to-day-is it commonly argued by gentlemen VIII
entertain the same opinion that l do-except in
manly way, according to our best ability, an
according to our understanding of the Constitu