Dallas herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1849-1873, 1860-10-10

trmY -yctu, Sat | Wu'lHAc that
II Dough inihH statrment Iieani
y ~ declare thai IN lSid ion The
ramo stump with mo, tha, hU ad'
cocatvl ,hr doctrine that u icll'i-
,ocia Legislature lnd ,h' power u
eNcluda lave property under ter
ri,orial conditions and alsu pre-
,rmc that hc psts ihis oNprcVlun in
rihat sense, and ihs " tic question
Snhich has bgcn the whole point 81
Dispute.
Well at I,p time, cithor before or
.(lcr the passage OF the kausas-
Nebraska lill in Congress, did j
liver entertain or uttor the opinion
Gsi,at Territorial Legislature, prior
/ Is tho formation of u state COnsti-
shop I'D .ib2 .p2.ES % eSSlgdc l!lssi
Territories Of tho umon, aud no
! otl,og adyocatc of my doctrines can
hc found who viii substmtialc the
charge.
Now | am 10 entertain you briefly
I by as clear an exposition as / can
make Of thc attitudes OF tho parties
in regard 10 the question at issue,
In 1851, we removed the restriction
Of the Missougf line, AMI passed the
Kansas Nebraska bill througl, both
houses Of Congress ana it became II
law. The argument Of those, North
and South, who opposed tho repeal
of the Compromise, vas that the
Territories shOnld be left opcn to
settlement. There was but one
poini epon which the friend # the
oil differed. The Southern friends
of the measure, and II few of its
Northern friends, denied the power,
either Of Congress or tho Territorial
Legislature to exclude any descrip-
tion of property.
The other party assumed the
ground that the Territorial Lcgis-
laturc had the power of such cXclu-
sion. 1t was constitutional qucs-
ton, however, and they agreed not
to mako it II matter of Legislative
dispute, but to insert provision in
tho bill referring tho question to
the Supreme Court for decision, and
all parties wesc bound to abide by
tho decision made by that august
tribunal. Upon this constitutional
question, we now prove that there
was such III agreement.
Ordinarily bill cannot be taken
from Territorial Court to the ST.
prcmc Court Of ihe 'niNad States, !
untl the matter in controversy
amounts to one thousand dollars;
and in order that this question
mieht be tried before tho Supreme
CoGrt, a.clausc was inserted to meet
The contingency. During tho pc
riod lrtwcen the passage OF shat
l&5k-n tots- lgeiNinn 20 tIqs i3at,. ..Ie,I
Court ali persons on each side en-
tertaineI their own opinions.
We in the South held that The
Tcrrilogial Legislature did not have
the power. Mr. Douglas and his
friends held that the Territorial
Legislature did have the power
We suspended that question, and
referred it by bill to the Supreme
Court Of the United States to deter
mine the constitutional question
therein involved.
There was Il body to whom we
could refer the question, and we
thought it unnecessary to further .
debate it,1sach party agreeing to ac-
quicscc in the decision as rendered
by the said body. l think that is ,
4 pretty plain statement on that s
point | make it TO show that there t
was u vow taken by the Southern \.
friends of the measure in Congress, |
MD among them a vow taken by 1
your humble speaker, TO supporG
hat decision. t
tMr Rreckinridgc here read some t
extracts from his speech delivered !
IN the House Of Representatives in t
1851 We wcro.. Wiling, he CON /
.inucd, to have the question decided I
oy the courts Of the United States. t
tg:in, | say, it is contchdcd up t
N the ono hand upon the idea +
# the equality of the States under il
he Constitution, and their common t
in tho territories, that the S
itizcns of the slavcbolding States f
nay remove to the territories with d
heir slaves, and there hold them a
lntil tho territory is resolved into a lt
'ta'o; and in that capacity it may 3;
xdudc them. On the other hand T.,
tisI said that slavery, being in con
lit with common right, can exist N
NY by the force of positive law, in
rM it is denied that the court ever in
the law ] said that we u
dnlandod that all citizens of the u
JAted States shall be allowed to VI
rRcr the common territory, with be
he Constitution alone in their TO
and, for that instrument protects OK
he rght of the master to his slave br
4 ills common territory. Youcan- WI
OF d,mplain if it does not protect Tic
is E;lc. We ask no help from ag
onlrcss IL difficulties occurred
e ere to let them DC submitted te,
de- Court NJ
la,w, upon n'A own personal vin 70
{atiun. the doctrines announced bN' rat
, in that speech were just such ITO III
have ever declared in the Com tcc
,nwealth OF Kentucky; such as I th'
we ever declared in every public set
dress that | have made in Ohio, !
,Jo,,., M;ch;oan and Pen nsy1vania fin