Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1860-09-21

lrlenuS. deny II ana snail now proceed 10
disprove it, both rs to myself and ~ to The
Constitutional Democratic party.
You have heard a good deal Of what is called
my Tippecanoe speech. | went to the States
of Indiana, Michigan, and PenuSy lvania, and
addressed the people i'll the autumn OF 1886.
None Of those speeches were ever written out
beforehand, and no one of them prepared by
me, except by the briefeSt notes; and OF the
reports which various persons chose TO make,
not one was ever revised or seen by me- | have
been amused to see the various versions Of
what they call the Tippecanoe speech. For
example, have in my hand paper which re-
presents me as saying at Tippccanoe, 'thc pco.
pie of the Territories under the kansas-Nebras.
ka act, have the full right to abolish or proh.
bit slavery, j,tSt as a State ac0uld:; which prn-
ciple is as old as Republican Government it.
SELF Not only did never utter such an OPT
nion, but until recently, | had no reason to be.
lieve any body ever represented ME as having
uttered it. 1t is only within i few weeks that
| remember to have seen it in any newspaper.
But ! have L very high accuser upon this
subject-no less person than the eminent Sc
nator from Illinois have no time to spare
in comments upon the proprlety or delicacy Of
a gentleman who is before the country for the
Office of President, introducing the name Of
one who is also candidate and giving his
personal testimony rs 10 that gentleman's OPT
Mons. shall waste no time in the discussion
of the propriety OF such course. wish to
meet the accusation.
The Hon. Stephen 4. Douglas in public
address made recently in Concord, " H., says:
"Thcre is not an honest man in all America
that will deny that James Buchanan and John
c. breckenridge, in 1856, were pledged to the
doctrine Of non-interventiOn by Congress with
slavery in the Territories Mark thc word
as it is there, "nun.ntcrvcntion. :" made
speeches from the same stand with }. {. Breck.
inridse in 1886, when he was advocating his
own Claims to the Vice Presidency, and heard
him 60 to the extreme length in favor Of popu'
lar sovereignty in the Territories. Then, speak
ing of certain other gentlemen from the South
who had addressed the people in the North, be
says: "In every one Of their speeches, they ad.
vocated squatter sovereignty in its hroatest
sense
Here, in the space Of twelve lines, you have
the words ''non.intcrvention, "squatter sovc-
reignty"and popular sovereignty" all evident
Is intended to convey the same meaning. These
terms are not synonymous and this loose mode
of employing language is well adapted to beget
confusion. | held the doctrine Of non-interven-
tion as it was originally understood and ell
grufted into the legislation Of the country
! fCheers 1t was non.interyention in respect
to slavery by Congress, and By its creature,
the Territorial Legislature, leaving it to the
people, when they should form Constitution
and become State, to exercise the sovereign
power Of defining property and admitting or
excluding slave or other property. This was
the non.intervention Of 1850; this was the non
intervention Of Henry Clay, as may show pre-
sently in another connection.
But assume that Mr.. Douglas, in this stnte-
ment meant to declare that in 1856, from the
same stand with him, advocated the doctrine that
the Territorial Legislature has the right TO
exclude slave property pending the Territorial
condition. presume he uses all these expires.
sions in that sense, and indeed that is the ques-
ton which has been the whole bone of dis.
putc.
Well, felow-citzens, have first my own
statement to oppose to that of the distinguish
cd Senator At no time, either before or
after the passage Of the kansas-Nebraska
bill, did | ever entertain or utter .hc opinion
that q Territorial Legislature, prior to the for.
nation of State Constitution, had the right
to exclude slave property from the common
territories of the Union. No. And no au-
thentic utterance Of mine can be found which
sustans that charge. You find it stated in this
extract rlich l uSt now read to you, and
which never saw until the other day-an ir-
responsible statement made by | know not
whom, never revised nor seen by NE, and, as
will show you, against the whole tenor Of my
public speeches. have suffered 4 good deal
by incorrect reports Of my speeches. 1t would
be well, perhaps, in some respects, since
now, through the telegraph and the
press every thing is dashed of by the
FIRST impression, to adopt the plan Of gentle
men in the East, who write out their speeches
before delivery. But never do it; speak as
am moved to do when stand before thcpco
pie do not doubt the competency or desire to
be correct of the gentlemen making reports; /;
but it may frequently happen, from the rapid
ty Of utterance or indStnctncSs Of delivery,
that they fail to catch the expressions and
meaning Of the speaker. Indeed, it is wonder
full that the errors are not greater and more nu,
merous. would in this connexion request OF
the reporters to give me al opportunity of rcvl-
sing what is said to-day.
Now, fcllow-citizens, will detain you briefly
BY as clear an exposition as can make of the
circumstances under which the kansas.Nebras-
ka bill became law in 1851.
The friends of the measure North and
South, agreed that the Missouri line should be re-
pcalcd and the Territory opened to settlement.
But there was one capital point upon which
they differed. Nearly all the Southern friends
of the bill. and few from the North, denied
that the power existed in Congress or in a
Territorial Legislature to exclude any descrlp-
ton Of property recognized in the States du.
ring the territorial condition. Others, and
among them Mr.. Douglas, held that's Terrtori'
al Legislature might exclude slave property. II
was constitutional question, and they agreed
not to make it subject Of legislative dispute;
but to provide mode in the bill by which tho
question might be promptly referred to the Su
preme Court OF tho United States !1r decision, ,ant
all parties were to abide by Il; ,!ccision of tha
august tribunal US 4 final sett lent Of the con
stitutional question. For TIL, purpose Wills
ordinarily an appeal cannot be l,ken from ter
ritorial court to the Supreme Court OF th'
United States, unless the matter in controversy
amounts to thousand dollars, clause was
inserted in the Kansas bill providing that in any
case involving the title to slave an appca
might be taken to the Supreme Court withou
regard to the value Of the amount in contro
versy.
Now, during the period between the passage
of TINT bill and the decision of the Supreme
Court, all persons on each side enter
tanned their own opinions. We, in the South
held that the Territorial Legislature did no
possess the power. Mr.. Doug as and his friend
held that the Territorial Legislature did posses
the power. But on these points al! wer
agreed First, that the action of the Territorial
Legislature must be Subject TO the Consttu
ton Of the United States second, that TIT
limitations imposed by the Constitution shoult
be determined by the Supreme Court; and
third, that all should acquesce in the decision
, when rendered. lCheers.
think this is a plain and true statement
and for the purpose Of showing you that VA
the view taken by the Southern friends Of tn
, measure in Congress, and certainly the vie"
taken by myself, proceed to read two or three
| :. G,-r n