Gazette and sentinel., 1860-08-25

plant ourselves hrmly upon the natuIal JuS'to0
of our cause and oppose to the last extremity
any abridgement of our right. put our utG
does not depend alone on these. 1t Is founded
upon a basis more lasting than the concessions
of ephemeral compacts or the popular catch
words of party platforms, or even than the
powerful but mutable sanction OF the law. IL
is established by the Constitution. /
| shall enter upon no elaborate discussion OF
the case. familiar TO YOU all, in which the Su-
preme Court of the United States nave de-
cided that the prohibition by Congress OF
l~slavery in a territory Is unconstltutluhal ana
void. That point covers the whole ground oil
controversy. And | am not to be shaken IN
INV confidence in this authority by the reck-
los and upfounded assertion that this question
was not involved in the case. Six out OF the
nine Judges maintain, not only that the point
did arise, but that it was the duty of the court
IN decide il. The authority of a Court OF
Appeals to determine whether a particular
question is raised by the record, Is certainly as
nertect AS their authority to decide 1t when
it is raised. And this great case OF Scott VS..
Sanford, which was twice deliberately argued,
establishes conclusively the right OF the cltl-
zen of a slave State to emigrate TO any oil the
territories of the Union, and to carry with
him slave property, which he lawfully held IN
the State in which he originally resided.
But against this doctrine of our right to an
unrestricted and unconditional enjoyment OF
the national territory, and in the face of the
solemn adjudication of the highest judicial
tribunal in the land, we have opposed the
| platform of the Republican party, and the
often EXPRESSED views Of Mr.. Douglas, who
| claims to be the regular nominee of the De-
mocratic party. The Chicago platform ex-
pressly declares:
a.. That the new dogma, that the Constitu-
Ition, of its own force, carries slavery into any
or all the territories of the UnitedS States, Is Il
dangerous political heresy, at variance win
| the expliclt provisions Of that instrument 1t
self. with its contemporaneous exposition, and
with legislative and Judicial precedent; Is
revolutionary in its tendencies. and subverslve
of the peace and harmony of the country.
g.. That the normal condition OF all the ter
ritory of the United States is that of freedom.
That rs our republican fathers, when they had
abolished slavery in all our national territory,
ordained that no person should be deprived OF
| life. liberty or property, without due process
, of law. it becomes our duty, by legislation,
whenever such legislation Is necessary, TO
maintain this provision OF the Constitution
. I against all attempts TO violate it. And we
DENY the authority of Congress, of n Terrific
rial Legislature, or of any individuals, to giye
T legal existence to slavery in any territory OF
the United States"
For this l have only 10 say, that It's prac-
teal enforcement would be a breach OF the
national compact, and that if any party pro-
Tossing these principles should be successful in
2 the coming contest, and obtain the power to
carry its doctrine into practice, one OF the two
t things will result-either the party will aban-
don its platform, or the Federal Union must
cease to exist. And here permit me to say,
that while l am prepared for any course rather
H., G.. N en1pniszinD IN tho destruction of our
: rights, l have still more faith in the stability
3 of the Union than in the ~permanence or I'M
I mutability of the Republican platform. L
4 have not seen the Union dissolved, but l have
: seen men and parties very often receding from
: their Understanding and defiant threats Of re-
$ ~sistance to established authority.
n But while the open avowal of the doctrines
4 which l have quoted from the Chicago plat
form, at once arouses your indignation and
e awakens your instant resolution to resist them
q to the last extremity. why should you re-
r gard the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, as
understood and explained by Mr.. Douglas,
d with less apprehension or aversion Once
e concede that the people of Il territory have the
constitutional right to prohibitslavery therein,
or that thew can legislate in a manner I'M
ii friendly to its existence-that they can dis
criminate against slave property-that they
Ie can neglect or refuse to pass laws for its ade-
ouate protection, and that Congress cannot in
Is terfere to save the constitutional right OF emil
grafton from invasion, and what becomes OF
d your security in its enjoyment? The only
difference between the position of Mr.. Lincoln
1t and that of Mr.. Douglas is, that the former
at proposes TO effect by a single prohibltory
Statute what can be just as readily effected
Ie under the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty by
le the combined action of Congress and the Ter
ii r~itorial Legislature.
IN You must remember that Congress has the
"a power to organize the territories of the coun'
he try at pleasure. 1t can determine their boun
diaries, and declare how broad or how marrow
id shall be the limits of any single territorial
b. organization. There is no constitutional pro
u vision which forbids Congress at any time t
of repeal the organic acts of all the t%errltorle
and unite them under a single provisional o
We Territorial Government. AT the very las
ed session it was proposed to organize n new ter
if ritory, embracing within its limits q part {
" New Mexico and the present Territory {
mt Utah. Whatever doubts were entertained {
use the policy OF that course, no one questione
d. the power of Congress to adopt it. Nothin
ed so far as / am able to see, places it beyond tn
re- legitimate functions of that body to so organ
I'm ize the territories as TO secure in the outset
,er majority of the inhabitants opposed to the il
bic ~stitution of slavery. And if the people, whe
thus organized, have the power either directl
to or indirectly to defeat your right of emigr.
on ton with your property, it amounts PRACTICAL
res to the same thing as if Congress itself pc
sessed it.
oil L need not be told that 1t is impossible TIL
the an Abolition majority in Congress wou
md resort to such a plan. Men who assert in Il
ri teeth of the Supreme Court that slavery cS
Tvs have no legal existence in a territory, ar
but who are intent upon breaking down evel
ex- constitutional guarantee In order to erect