The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1860-09-01
Judge Champiin and q. {. Gray at the
Court House.

Nh FREE TEADER:-I had tho satisfac
ton OF listening to the speeches of !. {.
Chanplin and o. c. Gray before the Re
publican Club Of Ottawa, on Saturday eve
ming, and wish to respond to most of the
sentiments advanced on that occasion.
Judge Champlin led Oft in an elaborate
argument, 10 prove that the Constitution
OF the L. ), nowhere recognizes the idea
o. property in man. He proved that such
recognition was definitely resisted and
prevented 10y the trainers Of that instru-
ment, lie earnestly repealed the idea that
the Fathers, "Sowed the seeds of slavery
in the constitution" This was well and
truly said. No radical abolitionist could
have said it better But what differences
did he draw from this great constitutional
principle so we'll and truly unfolded?
Why simply the extension of slavery
into territory now free Mr. Gray's speech
was essentially an endorsement Of the
same positions.
But are Messrs. Champlin and Gray's Is
/ norant of the fact that the republican
party, which they urge upon our conf
dence, does recognize, or practically ac-
knowledge the right of property in man,
, under the constitution which they both
maintain to be the supreme law Of the
land? Is not the right of Property in man
! practically recognized by the republican par
/ ty at least i'll three instances, viz First,
/ in acknowledging the constitutionality OF
4 Fugitive Slave law. Second in tole ra-
ting the institution of property in man, in
the District of Columbia and Thirdly
most grossly, unpardonably, and more
than beastly, in the continuance under
the American flag, of the interstates slave
trade.
Is not the nominee of the republican
party, Abraham Lincoln, publicly commit
ted to a congressional Fugitive Slave law,
and to continuance Of slavery in the
District of Columbia, and also the inter
states slave trade, except on manifestly
impracticable conditions? If, therefore,
Judge Champlin is correct as | think he
is, that the Fathers cashiered slaroy from
Tie constitution then they also cashiered
the republican party, Abraham Lincoln,
j. c. Champlin, and O. Z. Gray an infer,
ence more satisfactory to me, than proba-
bly, acceptable to their partners Yes
gentlemen, Your argument was simply a
proof Of the objectionable infidelity of the
republican party to the letter and spirit OF
the constitution, and it was a most severe
self-inficted rebuke for remaining in that
party, and commencing it to the conf.
dence and support Of the public.
Gentlemen, your political position is III
consistent and absurd, involving the act OF
acknowledged treason against the consti
tuition OF your country for certainly if the
American constitution does cashier slavery
there can be no political crime equal to an
endorsement and support of slavery
You see that your argument proves too
much for republcanism 1t is the startin .
position of radical abolitionism, and if in
genuously taken and consistently man
tanned, l welcome you, gentlemen, into the
only consistent constitutional party in the
country, viz: that Of the Free Democracy
whose central idea is liberty whose foun
dation is justice; whose legitimate end is
individual devotion, domestic happiness
} public prosperity, and universal well. being
OrrAwA, Aug. 9th. GEO w. BAssETr.