The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1860-08-11
Claudiana.

we must, in justice TO our readers, how
ever. dispose Of the business in a single ar
ticle Ii Claudius expects us to give him
the same space he deyotes to u.s. be must
/ write more that is worth controverting.
The first six columns of his paper are ia
ken up with clippings here and there from
speeches of stephen A. Douglas, made du-
ring the last fifteen or twenty years, SO
!jointed together and distorted by omis-
sions, false punctuation, and emphasizing
unemphatic words, as to give them the
semblance of being inconsistent with each
other No allowance is made for-no OK
/ planation given of the changed crcum-
stances under which the speeches were
made.
The extracts remind u OF the old Netl.-
odlst preacher, who gave his congregation
sermon Oh tonpcry, and took for his text
passage of scripture reading thus: Top
not, come down After the sermon, pi-
Gus brother ventured to express doubt
whether the words Of the text could b,,
found in the Bible. when the minister re-
terred him to chapter and verse, wheie,
sue enough, he found it, the whole verse
reading thus: Let him that is upon the
houset,p not cD.nc i3ra" Claudius. or the
pamphlet from which he copies, displays
the same kind Of ingenuity in peryerting
a plain text
Next, Claudius gives us chapter on the
Homestead Bill He don't give Us Ham
lin 5 record on that bill, because it would
be an embarrassing one; but he goes OFT in
general defamation on the subject decla-
ring rouudiy that i'll the Senate and House
all the Republicans voted for the Jill and
the Democrats against it Now there is
no need OF any defamation or dispute
about it. The facts are simply these, and
ClaudiuS viii admit them when he cools
of. The Homestead Bill never was a
party question. Members of all parties
from the North ever favored the measure,
while the South opposed 1t. John L.
Dawson, a Democrat. of Pennsylvania pro
posed the first Homestead BIZ in Congress,
and pressed 1t for several years. 1t passed
the House at two sessions, by Northern,
but not party votes, but in the Senate. the
South being stronger in proportion than in
the House, and alw; vs. having the aid of
Hamlln or two from the North, We're able
10 defeat it. until at the last session. when
1t passed. the Senate, but was vetoed by
President Buchanan. Douglas was always
friendly 10 the measure He voted for it
last winter and two years ago in ali is
stages, and spoke in its favor while Ham
I'm. N ISIS, "a steadily opposed it Last
winter he voted several times for the
House in preference 10 the Senate bill,
but when there he would have voted for
either Oh the final passage, is by 40 means
certain. That more Republicans than De
mocrats voted tor il Is readily admitted and
easily accounted tor by the simple fact that
there We're more Republican members in
the House from the North than Demo
Gratis; but what we contend for Is that it
Is not therefore Il purely Republican
measure, and that it is dishonest to claim
il as such
Claudius next gives Us Rsp, on the
bred Scott decision, declaring he has
smoked Us out OH that question, and we
asked Us to Se2 pilii 70 endorse IT, ne
OIL that decision, and we did SO by quoting
Judge d. ; own words We have not en-
dorsed' or refused to endorse the decision
The Court having made decision, and
there being at present no appeal from it TO
a country editor or any other power on
earth, we propose mOdestly to recognize il
as good law until reversed. That all
We should ~ readily endorse in the
same way the dissenting opinions of JUS
tees Mclean and Curtis. if they had any
force or Were consistent with eac! Other
But leaving this, Claudus procecds-
" Douglas admits that by the bred Scott
decision slaves are property-that the
Shareholder has a ii ght under the constitu-
ton to take them TO the Territories: but
insists that the Territorial Legislature can
deprive the Shareholder of this cou>titu-
tional property Isn't that inconsistent! 2
Let Us see. \ Massachusetts, boot maker
has 100 apprentices bound to him for ten
years. For that length of time they are
his property lie concludes to move to
Kansas and carry on his business II
there is no local law there TO the contrary
is not his right to this property as complete
in Kansas as it was in >>achusetts?-
But suppose the Kansas legislature has
T, I... In l. .
held in that Territory for Il longer term
than five years. Which law will prevail
that Of Massachusetts or Kansas? So of
slaves; man has a right to take them to
tain extent as property; but he must hold
them III the Territories subject to the local
law
Finally about that Challenge We
had written an article on the subject last
week, but it was crowded out We can
only repeat its substance We are offered
double our advertising Iates' if we will
print under the editorial head and keep it
there until after the election. an extract !
from the speech OF Judge Douglas, in reply
To jeff, Davis last winter, in which Judge
d. reminds the tre-eaters that, by leaving
New Mexico free to pass her own local |
laws, she had passed a law to protect slave
ry, while if the South had depended on
Congress, no such law would have been
passed.
We decline the Offer firstly, because we
will publish no advertisement or STANDING
matter under our editorial head for double