The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1860-08-04
Douglas and the bred Scott Decision.

crushing fact that the only principle for
which they contend has been killed dead
as herring by the Supreme Court of the
I. :, In the decision that Congress has not
tie power to prohibit slavery in the Territories,
seek to manufacture consolation by falsely
asserting that the same decision also kills
popular sovereignty. That tremendous
constitutional lawyer, the editor of the
Wtgsoa'n, makes it out plain case, by
quoting from the bred Scott decision as
follows:
Nov, as we have already said in an
earlier part of this opinion upon differ
ent point, the RIGHT Of PROPERTY in a
stare is distinctly and expressly aB7rmedi in the
Constitution. & * The only two provi-
sions which point to them (slaves) include
them and treat them as property and make
it the DUTY Of GOVERNMENT to PRO
TECT IT"
There you have itI' eXclaims this mag
nus a,ia'ss of the Uigwam The bred Scott
decision says, slaves are property, and it
Is the duty of government to PROTECT it.
vi course then when your territorial legis-
iatures propose to NEEDLE with this pro-
perry, the government must step in and
Interfere, and popular sovereignty wills
So says the great Claudius, of the Iiig,ram.
Now, Claudius, there ara some silent lies
that are mean.r than les uttered, and
omissions OF important words in quota
tons are sometimes said to be as base as
forgery. We accuse YOU Of no such mean
ness, for you doubtless took the above
quotation from speech Of Trumbull or
some other great liar, and were not aware
that the sentence quoted wound up with
this allimportant IF: II THE SAVE Is
CAFES FROM HIS OWNER" What do you
think OF that? There is no other sem
tence, line, or clause in the whole bred
Scott decision where it is declared TO he
the duty Of Congress TO protect property
in slaves, except III this one sole case,
where the slave escapes from its owner"
referring OF course to the duty enjoined
upon Congress by the constitution TO pro
vide for the rendition OF fugitives In all
other cases, this species OF property is
placed Oh par with all other property.
and is subject to regulation by the local
laws Of States or Territories.
Wei, the E,.ycaBl wants to know what
Judge Douglas thinks Of this bred Scott
decision. The Judge shall speak for him
self. We quote from his Harper article:
The rights of the owner, which it is
thus made the duty ot the federal govern
ment To guard and protect, are those ex-
pressly provided ior in the Constitution.
and defined IN clear and explicit language
by the court-that - the government III
express terms, IS pledged 70 protect il
tsiaYe property III al! future time, il the
s!dre escapes from his owner his Is the
only contingency, according TO the plain
reading OF tine Constitution, as .uthorita-
lively interpreted by the Supreme Court, in
which the federal government l. aahDi-aA.
rey~r,A or psrH,stt,i 10 interfere with slave
~ IN the states or Territories; and in that
case, only for the purpose Of guarding
and protecting the owner III his rights 10
reclaim his slave property In all other
respects, slaves stand upon the same foot
ing with all other property The Con>ti-
description OF property and other property
owned ~ a citizen: and no word can be,
found III the Constitution which gives Con
sress a greater power over slave property,
or which entities property OF that klud TO
less protection than property o. any other
description.
This Is tine basis upon which all rights
pertaining TO slave property, either III
States or Territories, stand under the Con
stitutlOn, as eXpOunded by the Supreme
Court in the bred Scott case.
"Inasmuch as the Constitution has de
legated no power TO the Federal govern
ment III respect TO any other lind - pro
.-~.r:,- - either ~
tr0d,trtny. ps,h,titlhg, ssta5hShng, nor Srcltsd-
ing 1t anywhere within the dominion OF
the United States, but leaves the owner
thereof, perfectly free to remove into any
State or Territory, and carry his property
with him, and hoht tie sumo SHtjcct u The lo-
cat dt~, and relying up5n tie local authorities
tor protection, Ii follows. according 10 the
decision OF the Court, that slave property
stands on the same footing i entitled 10
the same rights and iminunitie-, and i'll
like manner IS dysaJnt upon the Lral au-
taortttss tut Aa,c~ ter yroiartsD,L'
There YOU have exactly what Judge
Douglas thinks about the bred Scott dec-
sion as it affects popular sovereignty. And
judge b. Is not alone in taking this view
of it. The Hon. Reverdy johnson. who
argued the bred Scott case before the Su-
( pr, me Court, and therefore OF all men
ought to know best what they meant to
decide, say, Judge Douglas view is entire
ly correct, The Supreme Court endorsed
the Democratic doctrine of non-intcrvcn-
ton as the correct constitutional ground
/ they meant that-nothing more or less.
HIcKERY POLE II GRAND RAPIDS -E3rlv