The Jeffersonian Democrat. [volume] (Chardon, Ohio) 1854-1865, 1860-10-26
Mr.. Douglas Then and Now--When
Was He RiIht

Mr.. Douglas ouce hold that Congress has
power to legislate for the Territories. He
then recognized a distinction between
gross in 1915, he compared tho relation of
dependence which q Territory sustains to
Congress, to that which son, during his
minority, sustains to his father, AS Iato as
1850, bo held that Congress, by virtue of its
power over the Territories, could exclude
Slavery from them, and that no right would
be violated thoreby. We quote from
speech made by him in tho Senate, on the
l3tb of March, 1860;
But you say that We propose 10 prohibit
BY law your cmigratirg to. the Territories
with your property. WfPRoPosR Nc SUCH
THING. We recognize your right in common
with our own, to emigrate to tho Terrific
ries with your property, and there to hold !
and enjoy it Ia suborGination to the laws
YOU NAV find IN force in tho country
These laws, in somo respects, differ from
our own. as the laws of the various States
of this Union vary on some points from the
laws of each other. Some species Of prop
s-ty are ercinded by lac in most IF The Sidt's
as iDeH as Territories. rs being un,cise, i'm
moral, OR CONTRARY TO PRINCIPLES
OF SOUND PUBLIC POLICY For in.
stance, the banker is prohibited from emi.
grating to Minnesota, Oregon or California
with his bank. The bank may be property
by tho laws of Now Nork but ceases to be so
when taken into a State or Territory where
banking is prohibited by the local laws. So,
ardent spirits, whisky, brandy, and all the
Intoxicating drinks, arc recognized and con-
sidered as property in most of tho States, if
not all of them; but no citizen. whether
from North or South, can take this species
of property with him. and hold, soil or use
st his pleasure, in all tho Territories. bo
cause II Is prohibited by the local lawn
Oregon bv tho statutes Of the Territory. and
in tho Indian country by the acts of Con.
Rress. NOR CAN A MAN GO THERE |
AND TAKE AND HOLD HIS SLAVE |
FOR THE SAME REASON. These laws.
and many Others involving similar princi !
pies. are dirrcted against no section. AND |
IMPAIR THE RIGHTS OF NO STATE
OF THE UNION. They are laws against
the introduction, sale and use of specific
kinds of property, whether brought from
the North or the South, or from foreign
countries. Gong Globe, APpend'r, vol %.
part /, page 37l.
On the 81 of June, 1850, Mr.. Douglas
made another speech in tho Senate, in
which he said:
"But, sir, do not hold the doctrine that
TO exclude AIRY species OF property by law
from any Territory, is violation of any
right of property. Do you not exclude
banks from most OF the Territories? Do
you not exclude whisky from being intro.
duced into large portions of tho Territory
of the United States: Do you not exclude
gambling tablos, which are properly recog
zized as such in the States where they are
tolerated? And has any ono contended
that tho exclusion of gambling tables, and
the exclusion Of ardent spirits was viola
tion Of any constitutional privilege or right?
Aud yet il is the case in largo portion of
tho territory Of tho United States; but there
Is no outcry against that. because IL is the
prohibition of specific kind of property.
and not q prohibition against any section
Of the Union Whv, sir, our laws now pre-.
vent tavern. keeper from going into some
Of the territories of the United States and
taking bar with him, and using aud selling
spirits there. The law also prohibits Ger
sain other descriptions of business from
being carried on in the Territories. am
not, therefore. prepared to say that, under
the Constitution, pe haze not The porrer 10
pass iJrs rreiudtng .Nrgro Sidrrry from
Me Territories. IT INVOLVES THE SAME
PRINCIPLES Gong Globe, l649-5o, vol 81,
pages lil6, and Ili6.
This is good Republican doctrine, but
how docs II agroe with his assertion at Now
Orleans, in 1858, that "tSidues are regarded
as dsproprrtyAND PLACED ON AN EQUAL
FOOTING WITH ALL OTHER PROP.
ERTY,' sc, -? Contrast it with tho follow
ing points. which the Supreme Court at.
tcmpted to decide. in tho Dred Scott case
Sd. "EvERY CITIZEN HAS RIGHT TO
rAKR WITH HIx INTO THE TERRITORY ANY
ARTICLE OF FRoFERry WHICH Tue CONsTITU-
rIoN OF THE USIrED STATES REoooIzEs AS
PROPERTY
4th. "THE CONSTITUTION or TIE UNI.
TED STATES RECOGNIZES sLAvEs As PROPERTY
AND PLEDGEs THE FEDERAL 0ovERNMENr TO
PROTECT IT. Aud Congress- cannot exercise
any more authority over property OF that
description than it may coustitutionaliy ex-
ercise over property Of any other kind"
9Th. "The act of Congress therefore, pro-
hitting citizen Of the United Statos taking
with him his slaves when no removes to the
Territory 10 question to reside, is AN ExER-
CIsg OF AUTHORITY OVER PRIVATE PROPERTY
WHICH is NOT WARRANTED By THE CoNsrITU.
TIoN, aud tho removal of the plaintiff by his
owner TO that Territory gave him no title
20 freedom"
9Th. while II remains Territory, Con.
gress may legisla,e over it within tho scope
of its constitutional powers In relation TO
citizens Of the United States, and may es-
tabish Territorial Government, and the
form Of this local government mus; be regu-