Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-08-30
CHAPTER II.

i W % ''e e'-''ye q Oeaftg dH AggTeS-
sion on the South
"The next is the series of aggressions COM
planned Of by the Senator from South Caro-
lima, is the Missouri Compromise. The Mis-
souri, Compromise, an act of Northern inius-
iice designed to deprive the South of her due
share Of the territories? Why, sir. it was
only on this very day that the Senator from
Mississippi despaired Of any peaceable adjust
ment of existing difficulties, because the Mis-
sour Compromise line could not be extended
TO the Pacific. That measure was originally
adopted in the bill for the admission of Mis-
souri, by the union Of Northern votes. The
South has always professed to be willing TO
abide by It, and even to continue it as a fair
and honorable adjustment Of vexed and
difficult question. In ls45 It was adopted in
the resolutions for the annexation of Texas
by Southern as well as Northern votes. with
out the slightest complaint that il was unfair
to any. section of the country. In 1916 il
received the support of every Southern mem
Der OF the House Of Representatives -Wbip
and Democrat-without exception. as an al
tentative measure to the Wilmot Proviso.-
and again In lS4S as an amendment to the
oregon bill on my motion, it received the vote
II recollect right-and do not think that
can possibly be mistaken-of every Southern
Senator, Wing and Democrat, even including
the Senator from South Carolina himself
(Mr. Calhouu.) And yet we are now told
that this is only second TO the Ordinance of
1857 in the series ofaggressions on the South"
Il Douglas speech in Senate. March Is. 1850
Gong. Globe, Appendix, vol %, part l,
page $40.
CHAPTER III.
Douglas IN 1850, on " Prohibition" and Slapes
as property.
But you say that we propose to prohibit
1t by law your emigrating to the territories
with your property. We propose no such
thing. We recognize your right, in common
with our own, to emigrate to the territories
with your property and there hold and enjoy |
it in subordination to the laws you may find /
in force in the country. These laws in some
respects differ from our own as the laws of |
the various States Of this Union vary on |
some points from the laws Of each other
Some species of property are excluded by law /
in most of the States as well as territories, as |
being unwise, immoral, or contrary to the |
principles Of sound public policy. For in
stance, the banker is prohibited from emigrat-
ing to Minnesota, Oregon or California, with |
bis bank. The bank may be property by the |
laws OF New York but ceases to be so when |
taken into State or territory where banking
is prohibited by the local law. So ardent |
spirits, whisky, brandy, and sl the intoxicat-
ing drinks, are recognized and considered as
property in most of the States, if not all Of
them; but no citizen, whether from the north
Dr. south, can take this species of property
with him, and hold, sell oruse, at his pleasure
n all the territories, because it is prohibited
by the local LAWN Oregon by the statutes
Of the territory, and in the Indian county BY
.he acts Of Congress. Nor can aman 90 there
take and hold his slaves, for the same
ssson These laws, and many others in
si,,i, principles are directed against
o section and and i'm 7sir the rights of ne State
the Union They y laws against the in
sale and use 0. speclilc al.I AllGS oI
roperty, whether brought from. '-'t uoI' VI VI
le south, or from foreign countries. CSes
S speech in the Senate, March Is, 49,,
ong. Globe Appendix, vol. p, part l, page
Il. And again: Q
" But, sir, do not hold the doctrine that t
exclude any species Of property by law 7
oAA oAg e1AAAbOl u Il flOLhllOn OF any TlgQJ
property. Do you not exclude banks from
ost of them? Do you not exclude whisky T
ON being introduced into large portions Of I
e territory of the United States2 Do you t
1t exclude gambling tables, which are prop t
ly recognized as such in the States where 1
ey are tolerated. And has any one con- I
nded that the exclusion of gambling tables,
Id the exclusion Of ardent spirits was a
olation Of any constitutional privilege or
ght. And yet it is the case in a large por-
on Of the territory of the United States, but
ere is no outery aginst any kind of proper
, and not a prohibition against any section I
the Union. Why, sir, our laws now pre- I
mt a tavern keeper from going into some of !
e territories Of the United States and tax
g bar with him and using and selling
irits there. The law also prohibits certain !
her descriptions of business from being l
rried on in the territories. l am not, there $
re prepared to say that under the Consti- Z
tion, we have not the power to pass laws $
cluding negro slavery from the territories. S
involves the same principles Speech of
snator Douglas, June Sd, l958-pages IlI5
d ll16, vol. I'd, Cong. Globe, ls49 and 80.