The semi-weekly mountain Democrat., 1860-09-26

professed to be willing to abide by it, and
even to continue II, as a fair and hOnora-
bic adjustment Of n vexed and difficult
question. In 1916 it was adopted in the
resolutions for the annexation Of Texas,
by Southern as well as northern votes,
without the slightest complaint that it was
unfair to any section Of the country. In
1916 it received the support of every
Southern member Of the House of Rep.
resentatiyes-Whiga and Dcmocrat-with-
out an exception, as an alternative meas
nre Of the WilmOt Proviso. And again,
in 1913, as an amendment to the Oregon
bill, on my motion, it received the vote,
if recollect right-and do not think ]
can possibly be mistaken-ofevery South
ern Senator, Wing and Democrat, even
including the Senator from South Carroll
ma himself Mr.. Calhoun. And yet we
are now told that this is only second to
the Ordinance of 1887 in the series of ng-
gressions on the South. = C0ngre'siOndi
GtoJe, APpendir, col %, part 2, P0ge
$40.
That sounds like good Republican doc
trinc without a particle of " disunion" in
it, Mr.. Douglas does not leave the mat
ter thus, however, but returns to the
defense Of Congressional intervention in
the following clear style:
" But you say that we propose 10 pro
hibit by law your cmigrating to the terri
tories with your property. We propose
no such thing. We recognize your right,
in common with our own, to emigratc to
the territories with your property, and
there hold and enjoy it in the subordina-
ton to the laws you may find in some
respects different 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
we'll as territories, as being unwise, i'm
moral, or contrary to the principles Of
sound public policy. For instance the
banker IS prohibited from emigrating to
Minnesota, Oregon and California with his
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, all the
intoxicating drinks are recognized as prop.
erty in most Of the States, If not all Of
them but no citizen, whether from the
North or the South, can take this prop
erty with him, and hold, or sell, or use at
his pleasure, in oil the territories, because
it is prohibited by the local LAWN Ore
gon by the statutes Of the territory, and
in the Indian country by the acts Of Con-
gress. Nor can man 60 there and take
and hold his slave for the same reason.
There are laws against the introduction,
sale and use of specific kinds of property,
whether brought from the North or the
South, or from the foreign countries. -
Congressional Globe, 1850, Appendi1, rol.
%, part |, pdge 371.
The odous doctrine claimed to be set
tied by the Dred Scott decision, that the
Constitution recognizes property in slaves,
and guarantees full protection to such
property throughout our national domain,
could not be more plumply denied, or the
opposite position be more positively as
serted than is done here.
Again he tells us in the following words
that ait is no violence of Southern rights
to prohibit slavery" by Congressional in
tcrvention
"The territories belong to the United
States as one people, one nation, and are
to be disposed OF for the benefit of all,
according to the principles of the Consti-
tuition. Each State rs a member of the
confcderacy, has right to voice in form
ing the rules and regulations Of the gov
crnment of the territories; but different
sectons-North, South, East and West
have no such right. 1t is no violence Of
Southern rights to prohibit slavcry."-
Congressional Globe, Appendir rOl. %,
part !, poJc 3G0.
When instructed by the Democratic
Legislature Of Illinois to vote for the Viii
mot Proviso, he says:
~ have no desire to break loose. NY
opinions are my own, and express them
freely. My votes belong to those who
sent the here, and to whom am rcspon-
sible. have never differed with my con-
stitucncy during seven years service in
Congress, except upon one solitary ques-
ton, and even on that have no constitu-
tional difficulties, and have previously
twice given the same vote, under peculiar
circumstances, which is now required al
my hands l have no desire, therefore,
to break loose from the instruction. y
congressional GLO6G Murch 18, Appendil
rOi. 2, part /, page 303.
"Slavery, then, is prohibited in all the
country acquired from Mexico, by fund
amental lava constitutional provision
adopted by the inhabitants Of the coun.
try, and which must continue in force for
ever, unless repealed by competent au
thority. This doctrine is not new to me
nor is it now advanced by me for the first
time. y Congressional Globe, 1850, col
II, part !, page 379.
lie had mo constitutional difficulty
in voting for the Wilmot Proviso then
1t is thus shown, that through series o
years, Mr.. Douglas pursued and defended
the policy of congressional prohibition o
slavery, not only in Territories, but ever
in States-never denying and doubling
the entire competence of Congress to ex
tend the WilmOt Proviso to all territory
belonging TO the Government Let Vi
now examine
2D. DOUGLAS ON the IRREPREssIBIE CON
FMCT."
We shall here find that the existence
Of this conflict" was recognized by Mr.
Douglas several years before Mr.. LincOlT
spoke Of it in Illinois, or Mr.. Seward ir
Rochester. Mr.. Douglas said:
"I have already had occasion to renal
that at the time Of the adoption Of tn
Constitution there were twelve (slav'
States) and six Of them have since abOl