Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1860-09-11

| Free State. This assertion of what ma
thereafter" be decided, may startle yeu
but Virginia T a State claimed by Mr.
Douglas as having a large majority Q!
her citizens in favor of his views ant
policy, takes this view of the subject ant
has appropriated. by her Legislature, {
large sum. | believe $50, 900, to de
fray the necessary expenses of this sua
and the Supreme Court may hereafter
decide in accordance with her views. II
so, Mr.. Douglas and his party, by the
plain and express provisions of their plat
form, are pledged to carry out these
views; and then slavery VIII be NATION
AL; not only the Territories but in all the
States. Thal this is the logical conclu-
sion from what has been" decided, read
the folio wing extract from Mr.. Lincoln 5
speech az Galesburg, IN his contes; with
Mr.. Douglas In 1853, and then say if
the conclusions are not irresistible:
In the second clause of the sixth ar
tIcle, believe 1t Is, of the Constitution OF
the United States, we find the following
language: This Constitution and the
laws of the United States which shall be
made IN pursuance thereof and all the
treaties which shall be made under the
authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme law of the land; and the
Judges in every State shall be boaud
thereby, anything III The Constitution or
laws OF any State to the contrary not
wIthsianding.'
The essence Of the Dred Scott case is
comprised in,o the sentence which | will
now read: Now, as we have alread Y
said IN an earlier part Of this opinion,
upon a diffsrent point, the right of prop
erly IN a slave Is distinctly and express
~ affirmed in the Constitution" re-
peat ii, 'Ihc right Of property a9 q
SLHUc IS distinctly and expressly affirmed
IN tie C0Rajtutto7l," What is affirmed
in the Constitution! Made firm IN the
Constituuon-so made that It canno. be
separated from the Constitution without
breaking the ConsJitulion-dura.l lie as th e
Constitution, and part of the Constitu-
uon. Now. remembering the provision
of the Constitution which | have read
affirming that that instrument is the su-
preme law of the land; that the Judges
of every State shall be bound by 1t, any
law or constitution of any State TO the
contrary notwithstanding; that the right
Of property in a slave IS affirmed in that
Constitution, is made, formed into and
cannot be separated from It without break
ing i; durable as the instrument; part Of
tie instrument-wha follows as short
and even syIlogistic argument from iJ?--
think il follows. and | submit to the
consideration Of mea capable of arguing
whether as | state it in syllogistic form
the argument has any fault III ii.
Nothing in the constitution or laws Of
any State can destroy right distinctly
and expressly affirmed in the Consttu-
ton of the United States.
The right Of property in slave is dis
tinclly and expressly affirmed in the Con-
siitulton of the United States; therefore,
nothing in the constitution or laws Of any
State can destroy the right of property
in . slave.
| believe that ne fault can be pointed
oat in that argument; assuming the truth
OF the premises, the conclusion, So far as
have capacity al all to understand IT,,
follows inevitably. There is a fault in
it as think, bat the fault is not IN the
reasoning; but the faisehood in fact is a
fault of the premises. | believe that the
right of property in a slave IS NOT dis
tinctIy and expressly affirmed in the
Constitution, and Judge Douglas thinks
il IS | believe that the Supreme Court
and the advocates of that decision may
search in vain for the place in the Con-
sti.ution where the right OF property IN
a slave Is distinctly and expressly affirm
ed. | say, therefore, that tht1k one of
the premises Is 40; true IN ta.t. But il
Is tiue with Juty Douglas. II is true
with rh= suFran4 Coart who pronounced
ii. Tacy ar -z.crpad from denying It,
and being estopPed denying il, the con-
clusiou follows that the constitution Of the
United States being the supreme law, nc
constitution or law can Interfere with H.
Il bel . affirmed in the decision that the
right OF property IN a slave IS distinctly
aud expressly affirmed IN the Consiitu-
ton, the conclusion inevitably follows
that 10 State law or constitution can de.
stroy that right. | then say 10 Judge
Douglas. aud to all others, tha, think j
VIII. take 4 better answer than Il snreI
10 show that those who have said tha
the right of property in a slave Is distinct
iy and expressly affirmed in The consti-
tuition. are nos prepared to show that NJ
constitution or law can destroy thar right
say believe that 1t viii tax a far oct.
ter argument than 4 mere sneeT TO show
10 tue minds Of Intelligent men that who
ever has 50 said, Is not prepared. when
ever public sentiment Is 50 far advance
rs To Justify il, 10 say the o,ner. Fnat':
50. TINS IS but an opinion, and tn,
opinion OF one very humble man; but i
is nv opinion that the Dred Scott deci
sion. as IL Is. never would have beer
made in lis present form If the party lha
made it had not been sustained previous
IL by the elections. My own opinion IS
thai the new D-ed Scott decision, deci
ding against the right Of Ii e people o
the States TO exclude slavery, viii neve
be made If that party Is not sustained b,
the elections. | believe. further, that
Is just as sure 10 be made as tomorrow
Is to come, if that party shall be sus
tanned"
As to the correctness OF that decision
see Madison, Benton and Jefferson.
In discussion on the Tariff, May II
1889. Bark. Of South Carolina. sal,
"Slaves would fall under the genera
five per cent. ad valorcm duty, on artl
cles not enumerated" Madison repliet
that mo Collector of Customs woUl
7,roS,f77zs IN arniV the terms ro7TS. ara 70