The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1860-10-06
Douglas Answering Questions.

speech. After he had spoken sohe min
utes, the republicans in the crowd, as the!
are in the habit of doing everywhere, com
menced interrupting him by asking ques
tons. The democrats were indignant, bu
Mr.. D. quieted them and said it in no wa,
annoyed him. He then proceeded:
| fluid the republicans are very fond o
propounding questions to me, and think
that l am bound, as gentleman, to an
swer them; and yet there Is not one OF
them who will PROFOUND the same CUES
tions to their own candidate cries OF ''ne
ver," they dare not &c, who would moi
! be gentleman enough to answer them if he
| did Cheers ! thank God that hold
no opinion that cannot be proclaimed in
! the same terms everywhere, wherever the
| American flag waves over american soil
| TCries of a. Good!' and cheers. If were
| to undertake To answer all the questions
| the republicans PROFOUND to me, Il would
| take more time and voice than have 1t
| my command l hold that, as genqemen,
| they have no right to put question(p me
without first requiring answers to them
from their own candidate. If they are
properq ues:ious, which ought to be put TO
Presidential candidate, they are bound,
their own candidate. Cheers If they
are improper questions, not suitable TO be
propouuded to Presidential candidate,
they do not act Ike gentlemen in requi-
ring answers 20 them from me. :, That :
so, and applause They can take either
horn Of the dilemma.
Yet am in no wise annoyed by these
questions. and now intend TO answer one
which lind published in the Commercial
q. today. accompanied with a very ear
nest and anxious appeal 10 Inc TO an
syeT i;
Hon. LEues D CAMPBELL here called ou..
Il advise you not to notice 70 Com
MerciaL
,Ir. D1rGL,s-No matter; I viii answer
t. Immense applause. And, first per
nit me u read the question. II is as fol
lows:
What is the remedy of the people Of
the Territories, provided tho Supreme
Court finally determines that the measure
of restriction imposed by the Constitution
upon Territorial! Governments ! such that
these Governments cannot abolish slavery
within or in any w4y legally exclude it
from their limits:
How very anxious they must beoa has
suh.lct' Great laughter. They want
70 know what the remedy is, ii the court.
shall decide that the Territory cannot ex-
cIude slavery. in the first place Twill not
do the Supreme Court of the Cnitei
States the Injustice 70 believe that they
are going TO sul;ity themselves, much less
violate the Constitution. have too much
respect for tie highest judicial tribunal o.
earth 10 even suppose that they can be
guilty q! such an act. Three cheers for
-
ton urrl ;uey have perpetrated the act
assume laat no such decision ever can
he made 10y any court.
In the second place. the supreme Court
Of the uiget States have, in facr decided
that very question in fayer Of mybpinion.
No. for the facts. Il YOU VIII read the
Constitution Of the United States, you will
find that it defines vino are slaves, by whs;
authority persons are held a. slaves, and
in what cases they shall be rendered up
whe. they escape slave, within the
meaning Of the Constitution. i. | quote
=. person held to service or labor IN one
State. under the lave thereof. hence q
slave Is = person held to service or labor
~ n .S.... .'r-t'e its-e Hf5ssf-not under
Federal authority. not unde. an act OF
Congress rot under the Constitution Q!
;Le United states. bat held il the State
d. under the avs thereof. Can anything
be 'laiucr than tie words OF the Cous..tu-
t.5a on the subject? So much for tie
question. 50 far - II relates % the States.
Now. Jet us inquire AoW 1t stands "lt4
:ete.auce 10 the Territories. The first ~
g.t.ye Save law. which was passed in lty5,
..ud anproAei Iy George Washington, pro-
vides that \ person held TO service or labor
in anv OF the States, or in either Of the
organized Territories under the laws there
of, escaping thereirom, shall be delivered
uD. Thus II appears that slaves are deli
yerei up to the States and Territories
where they are held. under The laws Tad re-
Of The Fugitive Slave act in itself de
cla-es that slaves are held in the Ie.ri,o-
" under the laws Of ths Territory. Now.
bear ~ mind tina: that old fu ,itive slave
law j. sti.l u force. and that the act OF
ioJs is only an amendment 10 IT. provid-
it- that slaves, when arrested, shall be
taken before Commissioner OF the | nit
cd Sta,e- instead Of before a Justice of the
Peace Jhat Is the chief, the principle -!
,eratiCn aud the law stands 90 it was pass
Ell in lI.J. declaring that wherever slaves
exist in q Territory. they are held under
the laws thereof II that act of Congress j.
constitutional. popular sovereignty in the
Territories clearly exists according TO the
Constitution and the laws. No IMAM can
deny that conclusion, provided the !usI-
tive slavo act is constitutional.
Fifteen OF twenty years ago q case arose
IN PENNSYLVANIA, known as the case OF
Pri.g VS. The Commonwealth Of Pennsyl-
ysuia, and in that case the Court decided
that the Fugitive slave Law was consiitu-
tional in all its parts. Again, only one
year ago the Supreme Court made, deci-
sion in the case Of Booth, OF Wisconsin,
declaring that the Fugitive Slave Law IS
constitutional in all It's parts. Thus you
find that the Fugitive Slave Law, o. it now
stands on the statute book, Is constitution
al in all its provisions. One OF its progi-
sions is that, II person Is held 10 service
or labor III any of the States, or in either
of the organized Territories, according to
the laws thereof From this it is plain
that slavery exists in the Territories the
same as in the States, luiGer tde ialcS thereof
If the people want slavery, they will pass
laws in favor Of it; If they do not want it,
they will pass laws against it. Cheers.
But the Supreme Court did not leave
this matter open to inference when they
delivered their opinion in the case OF
Priscs VS.. The Commonwealth of Penn
sylyania The Court, in delivering their
opinion said that, the state OF slavery is
i mere municipal equation founded upon
and limited to the range of Territoria!
Laws That is the precise language OF the
Court, and it goes as far in behalf OF pop
uar sovereignty rs any democratin Amer.
lea. Iurrahs for that, and cheers J
Hence the Court has already decided the
question once, and mas decided in favor OF
non-interyention and popular sovereignty
as claimed by the Democratic party.
TCheers The case OF Priggs VS.. The
Common of Pennsylvania covers
that branch of the subject, and the Dred
Scott decision. in which the Court declared
that Congress had no power to prohibit
slavery, covers the other branch OF the
subject | think it is clear, from these