The register. (Monroe, La.) 185?-1861, 1860-08-16
Speech OF Hon. Daniel $. DicAiu-
SON. CuNCLuplp,

Mf, Calhoun aSsra; u that thr bill should b.
framed upon the priaciple OF tnon-intcrvtntion
and it was so framed, ant! SD passed the Senate:
bat was. near the close of the session. laid ON
the table in the House OF Representatives,. Tie
only difference between Mr.. Calhoun and my
self upon the subject then Or ut any other tia,c.
was this: He proposed that the bill should rec.
ognizr. III declaratory form, the right Of The Cit
izcns Of all the States to go to the common ter-
rtores. with their property. slave property in
clnded, and there he rro'rotll, without If
'iirming or dcuying his po'itioa proposed. VS.
il was an unsettled question nGd strictly hc
longed to the Judiciary. to leave Il to be iee.l-
remarking that the South had such entire co,r
iidence i'll the position. that they were willing
to stand upon non-intetvGntion. and await II
judicial construction o. the Consultation and OF
heir rights in the territories. The position OF
Mr.. Calhoun has since been fully vindicated
and sustained by the Drad Scott decision.
COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850.
The Compromise Measures os 1850 were bus,
ed upon the samc non-intervehtion plea, aud
While they were under discussion in the Senate
OF the United states. had the hnGor to state
my position there in q speech upou The floor. Us
follows:
"Now, sir, I wish TO say, ouce for I'll, that it
ia not my intention either directly rr i.direetly.
W bI, bF voice OF Nutt, VIZ tNIfnNhl
slavery, or the restriction o. slavery m The icr-
ritori s. by Congress, ol any iater,crencr with
the suh ct Mh,eycr. Nor am inNueUced in
!hiS conclusion by the local laws %; the tarrtn-
ry i'll question, either natural or lrlincial---tHe
laws ol nature OF the l.ws OF noa and, for all
the purposes OF the presen, action. l Win not
Inquire what they are III either respect win
stand upon the true princip!os of non intervene
ton, i'll the hroadest possible sense. or ilon-in-
tcrv"n'ion's sake. to uphold tie fundamental
principles Of freedom, and for no other reason
and will leave ih' people of tlr territories Nnl
of the States to such rights aud privileges as
are theirs under the Constitution aud laws o'
the United States, without addition to-, or diMi-
l,ution iroul such rights 10y the ae:ioa of Goa
gress"
KANSAS AND NEBRASKA ELL.
The Kansas and Nebraska bill, except in iia
disturbance Of the Missouri line, coHtaintd NO
new principle whatever, but copied the samA
ncn-iatcrvrn,ion principle which had been rec
ogn'2cd by Congress. nd awaited the Judicial
construction OF the Constitution
THE DRIED SCOTT pEcI,i>N
After the passage of all these N, nsI,rcs ram"
the Drcd Scott decision by tie s'npr2mo Court
o' the Unittd States, pronounce d otter nan s,lsi
labor and deiineraion, coastrNng tAc Cnastitr,-
ton and the rights ofcitzens OF thc States ia
the territories, us Mr.. Calhoun and other SOUTH
ern statesmen had conseuacl and tl:,.s sestl.ug
The question forever. TO li t'r1se VINO pF0pTsr
to abide by the Constitution aud laws. The
substance orthe decision was hiss
| "The territory thu acquired is acquired be
the people oflhr United STATE. for their COM
| mon and equal hcHet. through thcira&'nt and
trustee, the Federal Guverun Nh CuugrsSs
can exercise no poser over G,e lights Of p4rs,n
or property Of Il ct.z u ia ths territory. mich
is prohibited by the Constitution. The Govcrll-
nent and the ci,iZcps whenever the territory
is opened to settlement, both rnterit with their
respective rights drliacd aud limited hv the
Constitution. Congress has no rieht to proldt-
| it the citizens of any particular Sat- or States
| from taking up their home there while it por-
mits citizens OF other States to 10 90 Nor h.s
| it right to give privileges to one c.ass of
citizens whic!, it refuses to anolher The terri.
tory is acquired for their equal ant, common
benefit, and If open to any it must be op, IL
to all. upon equal and the same terms.
Every citizen has right to talk With him
into the Territory any article Of property which
the Constitution Of the United Slates raco.m .mi-
zcs as property. The eConsti'ution ofthH uaite,l
States. recognizes stavcs rs prop yty. aui
pledges the Federal Government to project it,
und Congress cannot exercise any mere author
ity over property o. that description than it Il, "
consttntona,ly exercise ov, 4 property Of any
other kind. The act of Congr 80 therefore pro-
hibi,ng citizen of tho UAited STATS from
taking with him slaves when h., removes to tie
Territory in question to resd. san exercise Of
authority over private property which is not
warranted by the Constitution, and the removal
ofthe plaintiff. by his owner. 10 that Territory
gave him no title to ireedonl.'
Now, if all had ac1nescod in 't,,s decision
like good citizens-had yielded willing ntlt
cheerful assent and ohcdancn tnit ppnalhrn,
tic construction of the iiin'lalueni,I Law hg t.
| highest tribunal the question of slavery in tag
| Territories would have been at rest. aaI titn
Democratic party would have baen on ils way
rejoicing. But every kind ofmeans was r,sorte,l
to to evadeit. Rampant Aoltionissn, mura man
ly than its accomplces in mischief op'ny de,
nouncrl ii and defld as it is wontto do ali e
gal Obstacles to the consummatioa Otis owl
distampt red daa--lemag COUSIN iiucd ts Il
fanaticism foamel and trimming cowaraicb
shrunli around it and assisted that the question
was not decided, and all ihes contned 10 setbn,
sought; ;tp deny to the citizens afihH slave StQta,
the benefits o.! the decision, either in theory o,
practice.
Ircppat, the South were sotis'lad with no, in
icrpontiou awaitin. in good faith .l,ed G',Dn %
the Court fore this adjudication F; sincrthn de-
ci-;on, they would have bsen satisfied HlInoa
Intervention and the acknuw'clg ar prIe
tlchl execution Vi IL itcCOIulilb 10 It's iiF atit
cqnitall" spirit.
THE OBJECTION OF THE SOUTH TO ME. DOUGLAS
The South did not object to Mr.. y u,ll
because othis principles Of non Intervention moi
because ofhi5 doctrines oTqualiii,G popular soy
"reglty in the Territories, as is 50 often and $,
pompou=ly alleged; but the opposition 10 Mn
arises. to say nothing Of his unfortunate conlro
vcrsy with the Administration, from his 10! rnea
cv of what they regard asa most rank and mis-
chicvou error, the slratter Sovereignty hcresg
contHndng, as he does, rs we have already sen
TINT notwithstanding the decision OF ihn 81
pramc Court, in the DFed Scott case holia!
that all citizens with their property are 10 u
admitted there on equal trrms, slave property
incGled. a Territorial Legislature IN ny ny IT,
enacted law exclude slave property ftpm In
rerritori $, thus virtually Investing Trrrto
rial Legislature with power to anuu this pro
vision Of the Constitution rs construed by tn
highest tribunal known to the law.
These are the articles of creed proposed h,
Mr. Douglas. to which the s0uth otj"ct. III tn
celebrated campaign debate with NJ. Liltnll
previous to the Dred Scott decision, in n tsw,
to certain questions proposed by Mr.. lincoln
Mr.. Douglas answered as follows:
''The next question propolnded TO me by Nj
Lincoln is, can the people of a territory, in :, .
lawful way, against the wishes of the Uaite
States, exclude slavery ION their limits priu
to the formation of q State Constitution? ] ar
swcr emphatically as Mr.. Lincoln has heard N
answer hundred times from every stump /
Illinois, that. in my opinion, the people Of