The gazette and Democrat. (Lancaster, Ohio) 1860-1860, 1860-08-23

was once DelleYer In tne doctrine thai
Congress has the power under the Con-
slitution to prohibit slqvery in the Terri.
tories. The Compromise bill of 1850
was under discussion in the Senate. and
Mr.. Douglas in reply to Jefferson Davis
OF Mississippi, said:
But, cir, do not hold the doctrine
that to exclude any species of property by
law from Territory, is violation of any
right to property. Do you not exclude
phiskey from being introduce! into a
large portion of the Territory of the Uni
ted States? Do you not exclude gamJ-
ling tables, which ale properly recogni.
zed as such in the States where they are
tolerated? Aud has any contcnded that
the exclusion Of gambling tables, and the
exclusion Of ardent spirits was violation
of any constitutional prieiege or right?
And yet it is the case in a large portion of
the territory of the United States; but there
is no outcry against that. because it Is a
prohibition Of a specific kind of property,
and not prohibition against any section
of the Union. Why, sir, our laws now
prevent tavern-keeper from going into
some OF the Territories of the United
States, and taking a bar with him, and
using and selling spirits there. The law
also prohibits certain other descriptions of
business from being carried on iu the
Territories. l am NOT, therefore, pre-.
pared 10 say that UNDER THE CON
STITUTI0N ,ce hare NOT the power 10
pass lars Il X CL U DING NEG RO
SLAVES .tros he 7erriforiesp'
1t would seem from the above that Mr.
Douglas was not in 1850 so much ofa
Squatter Sovereignty as he now is. He
wae then willing to admit that Congress
might constitdtionally prohibit the intro.
duction not only of banks and gamJIing
tables and suhisky, but also NEG R0
SLAVES, into the Territories OF the Uni
ted States.
But this is not all. Mr. Douglas was
Chairman of the Committee on Territories
in the House Of Representatives (of Con.
gress) in 1916, and introduced the Ore.
gon Bill on the esd of December of that
year. The l4th section of that bill ex-
tended the principle of the Ordinacc of
1897 over Oregon, which expressly pro.
hibitcd Slavery. Mr., Douglas also ,oted
for q cluse in that bill which reads as fol.
lows
an laws passed By tie Legislative As
Sena6ly shall be Submitted to tbs Congress of
the United States, and SfdEsqpprOved shall
Je null and voidi'
Mr.. Douglas also reported (in the Sen,
ate) an amendment to the Oregon Bill
as follows:
"ProUided, That no act of the Terri
iorial Legislature shall become law un>
til approved by the Governor
Thus giving to the Governor an aJ,o-
lat,, unqualified cote, and enabling him,
although appointed by the President, to
defeat the will of the "squatter sover.
eigns'' of that Territory upon ali ques
tions Of legislative action, even if passed
unanimously by their representatives.
in the Legislative Assembly. This last
proposed amendment the House re
fused to agree to, and during the last
hours Of the session the Senate, which
had adopted l., receded from it. 1t is
proper 10 remark, to prevent misapprehen-
sion, that Mr.. Douglas was a member of
the House when the Oregon Bill was orig
inally introduced, but took his seat in the
Senate before it passed that body.
We leave bis friends to answer how
much ofpopal0r sovereignty and non-n
'errention ere evinced by his speech in
the Senate in 1850, and his action on the
Oregon Bill in 1916 Al and '48. His
''gur reat pnr rinciple had not been copy
righted at the period Of which we speak.
But 1t is rot strange that the man who
once said "Thc Missouri Compromise isG
sacred instrument -canoni2ed in the hearts
Of the American people, and no ruthless
hand will ever dare disturb it,'-and only i
wo years afterwards destroyed that "sa-
cred instrument with his own ruth less
nand," unasked even by the South-it is
not strange, we repeat, that such man
should change somewhat upon the grave
question Of the right of Congress to leg
slate upon the question Of Slavery in the
Territories? 4.