Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1860-09-07
CHAPTER III.
Douglas in 1850, on "ProAibition" an,
Slaves as PrODertU.

SlaUes as Property.
"But you say that we propose to prohibit
it by law your emigrating to the territories
with your property. We propose no such
thing. We recognize your right, in COM
mon with our own, to emigrate to the terri
tories withyour property and there hold and
enjoy it in subordination 10 the laws you
may find in forco in the country. These
laws in some respects differ from our
own as the laws of the various States of
this Union vary on some points from tho
laws of each other. Some species of prop
erty are excluded by law in most of the
States as we'll as territories, as being unwise,
immoral, or contrary to the principles of
sound public policy. For instance, the
banker is prohibited from emigratug to
Minnesota, Oregon or California, with his
bank. The bank may be property by the
laws of New York but ceases to be so when
taken into State or territory where bank
ing is prohibited by the local law. So ar
dent spirits whisky, brandy, and all the in
toxicating drinks, are recognized and con-
sidered as property in most of the States, if
not all of them; but no citizen whether
from the north or south, can take this spe-
cies of property with him, and hold, sell or
use, at his pleasure in all tho territories, be-
cause it is prohibited by the local lawn
Oregon by the statutes of the territory, and
in the, Indian country by the acts of Con-
gresst. Nor can man 90 there and take
and hold his slaves, for the same reason
These laws, and many others involving sim
liar principles, are directed against no Sec
tion, and impair the rights Of no State in
the Union. They are laws against the in
PRODUCTION, sale and use of specific kinds of
property, whether brought from the north
or the south, or from foreign couutries."-
Douglas speech in the Senate, March 8,
1s507-Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 90,
part |, page s71. And again:
"Blt, sir, l do not hold the doctrine that
to exclude any species of property by law
from any territory, is violation of any right
to property. Do you not exclude banks
from most of theml Do you not exclude
whisky from being introduced into large
portions of the territory of the United
Statesg Do you not exclude gambling ta-
bles, which are properly recognized as such
in the States where they are tolerated p
And has any one contended that tho exclus-
ion Of gambling tables, and the exclusion
ofardent spirits was violation of any con-
stitutional privilege or right. And yet it
is the case in large portion of the terrific
ry of the United States, but there is no out
cry against any kind of property, and not a
prohibition against any section of the Union.
Why, sir, our laws now prevent tavern
keeper from going into some of the terri
tories of the United States and taking bar
with him and using and selling spirits there.
The Law also prohibits certain other de-
scriptions of business from being carried on
in the territories, am not therefore, pre-
pared to say that under the Constitution,
we have not the power to pass laws exclud-
ing negro slavery from the territories. II
involves the same principles Speech Of
Senator Douglas, June Sd, l85s-pages
1li6 and llle, vol. I'd, Cong. Globe, 1s49
and 80.