The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-09-19

4. SGIissinSilB ypna li5ed sd s..i,.d u..-
the lsgialnticn Of the cbuntry. fAppIauae -
fsTmt was nonaintstss 1tiohy cilher, bv O.
4 greas Or By the Territorial suthoris;es. sns
the power q the people, when they came 4
A ,1ow CONSTITUTION 70 determine for them.
selves. Applause. That was the doctrine
- WIZ proceed % snow more fully in another
part OF my speech. But /. assone that NJ
Douglas, IN this statement. fueapt to d.cI...
that 10 1856, from the same stand with h;,.'
I advocated the doctrine that the Territorial
Legislature has the power to exclude sI.vs
power pending theterTitoral condition. Ia.
sumo ne uses these expressions in that sense
That's the question that has been thu who'll
bone Ofslispuse % ai.aI's = "''S's
Well. feiloW-cidzsns, IhaFe nv own s,s...
ment to oppose to that Of the distineuishea
Senator. At No time either before or afiar
the passage Of the Kansas Nebraska bill h
Congress did ! ever entertain or utter the
opinion that territorial Legislature urior III
the formation of State Constitution, had The
power to exclude slave properly from he
common territory Of the Union. Never
No authentic uttefance Ofmine can b found
that substantiates the charge win lust
read to yonan article which never saw until
to-day--an irresponsible statement neversecn
4 and never revised BY me. will show YOU
/ Just my utterance.
Here would appeal To- the reporters I
have suffered good deal in my time by in
correct reports. Il don't know but II would
be well for US out West to adopt the habit Of
gentlepen in the East and write out before
/ hand the speeches We make.
never do il; / speak as / feel moved. I
would say to the reporters hereethat trust
they will give me an opportunity to revise
what they may put dOWn-y-D0t that doubt
their fidelity or capicity, but livery frequent
L " happens IN the warmth Of debates, one
substitutes q word when he would choose
another, or the reporter may not exactly catch
or understand the meaning attempted 10 he
conveyed. Il is wonderful this does not more
frequantly occur.
am going to detain you as briefly as may
be by an exposition Of the attitude of parties
at the time the Kansas bill was passed.
In 1854 We removed the restriction Of the
1 Missouri line We passed the Kansas-Ne-
4 hraska bill through both houses 81 Congress-
II became law. The friends Of the measure
North and South, agreed that the Missouri
Compromise should beremoved. The friends
of the measure agreed that these territories
should be opened 10 settlement But this
II was one point upon which the friends of the
bill differed. The Southern friends Of the
measure and . fewsof the Northern friends Of
the measure denied the power, either of Con-
4 gress or the Territorial Legislature to exclude
I any description Of property pending the ter
ritorial condition. Others including Mr.
Douglas and Mr.. Cass believed the TerTitori-
al Legislature would have the power to ex-
'cluda slave property during the territorial
condition. That was q constitutional ques-
ton, and we agreed BY the measure not to
make It . matter, Of legislative dispute. II
was constitutional question, and all parties
were agreed tomake . provision in the bill
referring il TO the Supreme Court, and all
parties were to be bound by The decision Of the
!. Supreme Conrt one this constitutional ques-
ton, Let me prove that was the agreement.
Ordinarily an appeal can be taken from
Territorial court to the Supreme Court, WHEN
y the matter in controversy amounts 70 thou
sand dollars. But in this there was provil-
! ion inserted IN the Kansas bill, that every
question relating to the right ola slave 10 free
dom, or ON habeas corpus, must be taken I'd
by an appeal without refarence 70 he amount
II controversy. 5arg ~ ~ "a 1852
This was done 10 Afford the earliest oppor-
tunity for the Supreme Court 70 decide The
only question between the friends Of the Kan
sas Nebraska bill
Now, during the period between the pas
sage Of that bill and the decision Of the Su-
n preme Court Of course AL persons on each
side entertained their own opinions We q
Tho South held that the Territorial Legisla-
ture did not have the power. Mr.. Douglas
and his friends held that the Territorial L..
gislature did have the power Butas we had
suspended that question, and referred it b.
the bill to the Supreme Court Of the United
States TO determine the constitutional ques
! ton, there was common form OF Expressed
which wo could al adopt and which we did
adopt during the intefregnuvz, If / may 50
4 term ii, to-wit-: Thatthe people should form
and regulate their domestic Institutions II
their own way, subject only to the C0nstitu-
| ton Of the United States, What limitations
the Constitution Of the Unittd States would
impose upon the power Of Territorial aulhon-
ties, was the very point we referred BY the
bill to the Supreme Court, with the under
standing ct the time when case was decided,
every man bslonging 70 auy party should ac-
quieSce IN, and bow to the decision. think
that is pretty plain statement On that point
keit for the purpose ofshowing to you
that was the view takenaby the Southern
friends Of the bill in Congress, and certainly
the view taken by your humble speaker.
! will take The liberty sof reading from
speech suade in the House Of Representatives
| in Congress, in the year 1854
- ave demand that al the citizens of the
United States Be allowed to enter the COM
mon territories, with the Constellation alone
in their hands. II that Instrument protects
the title of the master to bis slave in this com
mon Territory, y6a cannot complain; if it
docs mot protect his title We ask no help from
Congress and the relations of the COnstitu-
ton to the subject weAre willing to have de-
cided by the courts Of the :United States"
And again I say :: q 90 2 So
n IN IS coltended On one hand. upon the
idea afs the eQnalitys Of the States sundAr the
Constitution, and their, common property in
the Territofies that tie citizeus Of the. slave
holding States may remove 70 them with
Their slaves land that the local Legislature
nsnnpt nghtfully exclude slavery while in the
Territorial condition: but It Is conceded that
the people may estah lish Or prohibit it when
they come ia p1aTrise the power Of sover-
eign Stake.l On The other hand, it is said
that slavery, being ID dsrugEion Of common
right can only exist by force Of positive law;
and it is denied that the Constitution furnishes
this law for the Territories |; and il is further
claimed that the local Legislature may estab-
lish or exclude itat any time after govern
flent e crgnniEed. AS both parties appeal TO
the Constituted, and base their respective
Arguments On opposite constructions. Of that
instrumentst the bill wisely refuses 10 make q :.
question for Judicial construction the subjsr%.
Of egislAtiye conflict and properly refers il -
the tribunal created BY the Constitution itse
for tho very purpose Of deciding ali cases 81
law and equity arising under ito
There was distinct assertion Of the prin-
Gples that the territories were acquired
by the common treasure, and that they be-
longed tQthe citizens of all the States Nr en-
joymsht and use during the terTiloEial cOndi-
ton think that y sufficient PROOF that at
the period 81 the passage Of the KAns 49,
braska blll ldld not hold the doctrine that
Senatorial Legislature could drive South
ern property ont Of, tho territory during
its territorial condition. ~ eaa1s $40 =
: lam now upon my own personal Sindicasion
Thct doctElpcS apnounce1 BY me in that
speech; wera 5ust such a. have sver declared
a the vOl4monwealth Of Kentucky, lust the
same as have announced in Indiana Ohio,
Michigan and Pennsylvania Afterwards
when 4 WIS understood that i had been
charged msthnt had been reported % have
admitted this power In tho Territorial Iagis-
lstnre, in the mouth Of September or Octc-
ber, 1866 the editor Of the Kentucky States
man .llndmg to those charges makes the
blowing statement 70 which Ijbag 20 refer
Epri Az you This was helorethe eTectionl
DC sAfsEl Ttlu u,gafE1a,,8l
"It was ear pleasure to accompany Mr..
Breckinridgn on tho occasion referred 70. on
his tour through Ohio and Indiana, and %
witness thegwsrIn response Of the National
0empcAcy ofGincinnati RHamilton snd Tip
pecan0e toths avoMal, by him, ofexaetly TIE
sentiments we hal often heard him proclaim
b KNnkpck and which arc clearly embodied
M the platform of ourpartys He said il bad
been charged thab the DsmOriutio party intcn-
led to employ, the Feaefsl Government b
propagate slayeg5, and that il was ia rs teder-
i relations ae pro slavery party. This 10
aid, was not true The DemocEatic party
Vas neither npFo ;sl4yery party nor IN anti
slavery party. hut tConstitutional party 4
rejected the interference q the Federal Gov
Nhelher ., intSOduce Or sxclude