The register. (Monroe, La.) 185?-1861, 1860-10-04

OCTOBER 4, 1860.
them without the slightest regard to the consc.
quences. ! am represented this day rs having
said would make q difference between one oil
my own religious belief and between an unnat.
uralized citizen, and that would make polit-
ical difference. never uttered such q senti-
ciple with me was this |: that the condition of
citizenship being orce obtained, no question,
either Of religion or birth, should he allowed
to commingle with political considerations
lApplanse.l
deem it only necessary to make these state
ments here succinctly and pass on. because
am speaking to assembled thousands who know
this injustice but, fellow.citizens, to come tol
more extended topics. Ithas been asserted that
I, and the political organization with which l
am connected, have abandoned the ground on
which we stood In regard to the Territorial
question in 1854 and 1856 that we then occu-
pied a position which is now occupied by the
friends and supporters Of Mr.. Douglas, and that
en,uent gentleman himself deny 1t, and shall
now proceed to prove it, both as 70 myself and
the party. You have heard the issue involved.
There was a body to whom we could refer tho
question. and we thought it unnecessary fur.
ther to debate, each party agreeing to acqui-
esce in the decision Of the Supreme Court, all
opinions. We in the south held that the Terri
torial Legislature did not have the power. Mr..
Douglas and his friends held that the Tcrritori-
oil Legislature did have the power. We sus-
pended that que 'tion, and referred by bill to
the Supreme Court Of the United States to de-
termine the Constitutional question.
A good deal has been said Of what is called
my Tippecanoe speech. Well, gentlemen,
went over to the States Of Indiana, Michigan
and Pennsylvania, to make political speeches
in 1856.
No one Of those speeches was ever written
out, and no one Of them prepared by me except
by the briefest notes and the reports which
various persons chose to make, never was u sin
gle report of those reviewed by me or written
out in full. have been amused to see various
portions of what they call the Tippecanoe
speech, and the divers reports of the reporters
which they chose to make for the different pa-
pers Mt different times, hnve in my hands n
report which reads MS follows, in reference to
the Territorial question: "The people Of the
Territories, under the Kansas Nebraska Act,
very, which principle is as old as the Republi-
can Government itself" Not only did | never
utter such sentiment, but have no reason to
believe anybody thought uttered 1t. l have
never seen it in any newspaper anywhere. But
have no time to waste on comments, on the
propriety or delicacy Of gent who is before
the country for the o1lce Of President, in intro
ducing the name of one who IL also candidate
with me, and giving his personal testimony.
AZ to that gents opinions ] shall waste no time
in The discussion Of the propricty Of such Il
course wish TO meet the accusation of the
Hon. S, 4. Douglas, in n series o! papers which
lie has been reading in various States, and even
recently in Concord, New Hampshire, l give
his own language: "Thcrc is not IN honest
man in all America" says Mr.. Douglas that
will deny that james Buchanan and John O.
Hrcckinridge, in 1856, were pledged to the doc
rine of non.intervention by Congress with sln-
very in the Territories" Mark the word as 1t
is there, non-ntcrvention.
al made speeches from the same stump with
John G. Ireckinrdge in 1856. when he was nd
vocating his own claims for the Vice.Presidcn-
cy, and heard him go to the extreme length in
favor of popular sovereignty in the Territories
| Then is speaking Of other gentlemen from the
south who had been expressing themselves in
| the North, he says: Z" In every one Of the
speeches they advocated squatter-sovcrcignty
in it's loulcst sense" Here In the space O
twelve lines, you sec the words non-interven'
tion, popular-sovereignty,, ,Fquatter sovereignty,
nll evidently conveying the same meaning.
held the doctrine of non-intcrvention rs 1t wa.
originally understood and cngrafled into Tho
legislation of the country [cheers], rs will
proceed to show more fully in another portion
Of nv speech But assume that Mr.. Dougal
| in this statement meant to declare in 1856
from the same stump with me he advocated tho
doctrine that Territorial Legislature had th'
power to exclude slave property under the Ter
ritorial conditions, and presume he uses thi
expression in that sensc, and that is the qncs
| houh hpnt hn xch n
Well, at no time, either before or after tn
passage of the Kansas Nebraska bill in Con
4 cress did ever entertain or utter the opinion
that a Territorial Legislature, prior to the for
nation Of State Constitution, had the powc
10 exclude slave property from the common
Il Territories OF the Union. Never!
No authentic utterance Of mine can be toun
that substantiates the charge. will just rea
to You an article which never saw until tc
day, on irresponsible statement never seen m
never revised by me. will show you just m
uttcrance.
Here would appeal TO tho reporters.
Il have suffered n good deal in my time by ncol
, rect reports. ] don't know but II would b
, we'll for us out West to adopt the habit Of ger
!, tlefiel, in the East and write out bcforchan
the speeches we make.
!, never do it; / speak as l feel moved.
t would say to The reporters here that trust the
VIII give me an opportunity W IeVise "hnt 'ut
I may put down--not that doubt their hdelit
/ or capacity, but it very frequently happens
/ the warmth of debates, one substitutes VOL
|. when he would choose another, or the report'
# may not exactly catch or understand the mca
ing attempted to be conveyed. 1t is wonde
r full this does not more frequently occur
b am going to dctain you US briefly as mF
be by an exposition of The attitude Of parti
ri at the time the Kansas bill was passed.
r In 1854 we removed the restriction OF u
J. Missouri line, and passed the Kansas-NebrasI
i. bill through both Houses, and IT became la
and its friends north and south, who we
e against the compromise, said it should he !
d moved. They argued that these Tcrritori
j. should be open to settlement.
81 There was one point upon which the fricn
h of the bill differed. The southern friends
ir the measure denied the power either of Ct
grcss or the Territorial Legislature to eXclu
st any description Of property; the other .ra1
Sc assumed the ground that the Territorial leg
I'd lature had such power. 1t was constitution
n question, and they agreed not to maze 1T IN
We ter of legislative dispute. but to make p
i'll vision in the bill to the SUPREME Court TO
at decision, and all the parties were bound
be abide by the decision made by that august
no bunal upon this constitutional question.
of me now prove that there was such an agreem.
,r- Ordinarily o bill cannot be taken from a I
ng ritorial Court through the Supreme Court
aw the United States until the matter in contro'
DIV sy amounts to $1,000, and in order that
IN question might be tried before the Suprt