Columbia Democrat and Bloomsburg general advertiser. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1850-1866, 1860-09-15

nave been amused to see various portlonS
of what they call Tippecanoo speech, and
the divers reports of the reporters which
they chose to make for different papers at
different times. have in my hands re.
port which reads as follows, in reference
to the Territorial question: "The people
of the Territories, under the Kansas Ne
braska Act, have the full right to prohibit
slavery, which principle is as old as the
Republican Government itself"
Not only did 1 never utter such a SEN
timent, but have no reason to believe
that any body even thought uttered it
l had never seen it in any newspaper any
where. But l have no time to waste in
comments upon the propricty or delicacy
Of gentleman who is before the country
for the office of President, in introducing
the name of one who is also candidate
with me, and giving his personal testimo-
ny.
As to that gentleman's opinions I shall
waste no time in discussion of the pro.
pricty of such a course. wish to meet
the accusation of the Hon. S. A. Douglas,
in series of papers which he has been
reading in various States, and even re-
Gently in Concord, n. II. | give his own
language " There is not an honest man
in all America" says Mr.. Douglas, d" that
will deny that James Buchanan and John
G. Breckinridge, in 1856, were pledged to
the doctrine of non-intcrventien by Con-
gress with slavery in the Territories.
Mark the word, it is there non-interven-
tion.) / made speeches from the same
stump with j. G. Breckenridge in 1856,
when he was advocating his own claims
to the Vice Presidency, and heard him 90
to the extreme length in favor of pcpu-
lar sovereignty in the Territories Then
speaking of other gentlemen from the
South, who had been expressing them
selves in the North, he says, In every
one of the speeches they advocated squat
ter sovereignty in its broadest sense"
Here, in the space of twelve lines, you
see intervention, popular sovereignty,
all evidently conveying the same meaning,
that | held doc rincs of non-intervention
as it was originally understood and en-
graf ed into the lcgisla ion of the country,
as will proceed 10 show more fully in
another part of my speech. But l pre-
sumo that Mr.. Dougla in this statement
meant to declare that, in 1856, from the
same stump with me, he advocated the
doctrine that territorial legislature had
the power to exclude slave property un-
der territorial conditions, and / also
presume that he uses this expression in
that sense; and this is the question that
has been the whole point Of dispute.
Well at no time either before or after the
passage OF the Kansas Nebraska bill in
Congress, did | ever entertain or utter the
opinion that a Territorial Legislature.
prior to the formation of a State Consti-
tuition, had the power to exclude slave
property from the c,mmon Territories of
doctrines can be found who will sub.
stantially change this expression. Now l
am to entertain you briefly by as clear an
exposition as can make of the attitudes
of the parties, in regard 10 the question
at issue. In 1854, We removed the re-
striction Of the Missouri line, and passed
the Kansas-Nebraska bill through both
Houses of Congress, and it became a law.
The argument of those, North and South,
who opposed the repeal of the Compro =
mise was that the Territories should be
left open to settlement. There was but
one point upon which the friends of the
bill differed. The Southern friends of the
measure, and few of its Northern friends,
denied the power either of Congress or the
Territorial Legislature to exclude any
description of property.
The other party assumed the ground that
the Territorial Legislature had the power
of such exclusion. 1t was Constitutional
question, however, and they agreed not to
make it matter of Legislative dispute, but
to insert provision in the bill referring
the question to the Supreme Court for de-
cision, and all parties were bound to abide
by the decision made by the august tribu'
nal upon this Constitutional question.
We now prove that there was such an
agreement. Ordinarily bill cannot be
taken from Territorial Court to the Su.
preme Court of the United States until the
matter in controversy amounts to $1,000,
and in order that this question might be
tried before the Supreme Court clause
was inserted to meet the contingency
During the period between the passage ot
that bill and the decision of the Supreme
Court, all persons on each side entertained
their own opinion.
We in the South held that the Terrific
rial Legislature did not have the power
Mr.. Douglas and his friends held that tht
Territorial Legislature did have the power
We suspended that question and referred
it by bill to the Supreme Court of thu
United States to determine the constitution
al question therein involved
There was a body to whom we could re
fer the question, and we thought it unnec
essary further to debate it, each part.
agreeing to acquiesoe in the decision a
rendered by the said body, think tha
is pretty plain statement on that point
| make it to show that there was a vo,
taken by the Southern friends of the mei
t sure in Congress, and, among them, vo'
.,I L., l,,,,,l,ln lou, 10