The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1860-09-26

!, Dreckinridge in 1856, whom be was advocatin;
his own claims to the Vice Presidency. ant
J heard him go to the extreme length in favor o
Popular Sovereignty in the territories" Ther
speaking Of certain other gentlemen from th'
South. who had addressed the people in ih'
North, he says: "In every one Of their speeches
they advocated Squatter Sovereignty in iu
broadest sense" -
Here in the space oftwelve lines you have
the words mon Intervention" "Squatter Soy
ereignty," and "Popular Sovereignty" all evi.
IDENTIFY intended to convey the same meaning
These terms are not synonymous, and this loose
mode Of ofemplOying language is well adapted tC
beget confusion. ] held the doctrine OF non-in-
tervention as it was originally understood. and
ingrafted with the legislation Of the country
| CHEERS Itwas non-interven,ion in respect ,c
slavery by Congress, and BY its creature, ht
Territorial Leg;slatare, lerving il to the people
when they should form Constitution and be-
come aS,ate, to exercise the sovereign power
ofdefning property and admitting or excluding
slave OF other property. This was the non
Intervention of l850-this was the non. inter-
vention Of Henry Clay, as | may show present.
y in another connection.
But assume that Mr.. Douglas, in this state
Inent, meant to declare that Lin 1856, from the
same stand with him advocated the doctrine that
the Territorial Legislature has the right to ex.
clude slave property pending the Territorial
condition. presume he uses all these ex.
pressions in that sense; and indeed that is the
question which has been the whole bone o
dispute. ss,ass.R fa - II -g
WE'LL fellow citizens, | have first my own
statement TO oppose to that of the distinguished
Senator, At no time, either be- or after
the passage Of the Kansas Nebraska Dill, did
| ever entertain or utter the opinion that Ter.
ritorial Legislature. prior to the formation of a
State Constitution, had the right to exclude
slave property from the common territories oi
the Union. No. And no authentic utterance
OF mine can be fouud which sustains that
charge. You find il stated in this extract which
/ have just read to you, and which ! never saw
until the other day, an irresponsible statement
made by know not whom, never revised nor
seen by me, and, as will show yon, against
the whole tenor ofmy public speeches. I have
suffered good deal by incorrect reports Of my
speeches. 1t wonld be well, perhaps, in some
respects, since now, through the telegraph and
the press, everything is dashed off by the first
impression, to adopt the plan Of gentlemen in
the East, who write out their speeches before
delivery. But ] never do it. speak as
am moved to do when stand before the peo.
pie. do not doubt the competency or desire
to be correct Of the gentleman making reports;
but it may frequently happen, from the rapid
ity Of utterance, or in distinctions Of delivery,
that they fail to catch the expressions and
meaning Of the speaker. Indeed is wonder.
full that the errors are not greater and more
numerous. ! would, in this connection, re
quest the reporters to give me an opportunity
Of ofrevising what is said to-day
| Now, fellow citizens. will detain you briefly
by as clear an exposition as can make, ofthe
circumstances under which the Kansas Nebras.
ka bill became a law, in 1854.
The friends ofthe measure, North and South,
agreed that the Missouri line should be repeal.
cd and the Territory opened to settlement.
But there was one capital point on which they
differed. Nearly all the Southern friends ofthe
bill, ard ew from the North, denied that the
power existed in Congress or in Territorial
Legislature to exclude any description OF prop.
erty recognized in the States, during the terri
toral condition. Others, and among them Mr..
Douglas. held that Territorial Legislature
nigh, exclude slave propety. 1t was Con,
stitutional question, and they agreed not to
make it subject Of legislative dispute; but to
provide mode in the bill by which the qres-
ion might be promptly referred to the Supreme
Court of the Uuited States for decision, and all
parties were to abide by the decision, Of that
august tribunal. as a final settlement Of the
Constitutional question. For this purpose
whilst ordinarily an appeal can not be taken
from territorial court to the Supreme Court
OF the United States unless the matter Of con.
troversy amounts to thousand dollars--a
clause was inserted in the Kansas bill, provi
ding that in any case involving the title to q
slave, an appeal might be taken to the Supreme
Court without any regard to the value Of the
smount in controversy.
Now, during the period between the passage Of
that bill and the decision Of the Supreme Court
all persons on each side entertained their own
opinions. We, in the South, that the Terrific
rial Legislature did possess the power. Mr..
Douglas and bis friends held that the Terrific
rial Leg stature did possess the power. But
on these points all we're agrssd--lst. that tho
action Of the Territorial Legislature must DO
subject to the Constitution OF ths United
States" End, that the limitations imposed by
the Constitution should DO determined by the
Supreme Court; and Sd, that all should acqui-
esce in the decision when rendered. Cheers
think this i plain and true statement,
and Tor the purpose Of showing you that was
the view taken by the Southern friends of the
measure in Congress, and certainly the view
taken by myself, proceed to read two or three
extracts from speech delivered by me IN the
House Of Representatives, in 1854. before the
bill passed Congress: ~ '''a'@ S'4'7e"
1--WE demand that al the citizens OF the
United States be allowed TO enter the common
tearitory, with the Constitution alone in their
hands. II that instrument protects the title OF