Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-09-17
Extract from Gsu. Joe Lanes COviugtOn

My attention has been called TO q speech
that made at Concord, in New Hampshire
in 1855 in which they say | sanctioned the
doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty. l will
say this, my friends, that never had il in my
head in my life that any man Of any sense
could hold that the people could prohibit
property in a territory while It was terri
tory Now, mark you my friends, went
up there before the Squatter Sovereignty was
promulged. Then the doctrine was Wilmot
Proviso, Congressional Interference. The
right OF the Legislature to prohibit slavery in
a territory, l entered my solemn protest
against. said, why not leave it TO the peo-
pie in that territory, never dreaming that any
man in the world would be fool enough to
say that the people of a territory should pro-
hibit it while it was a territory, but to leave
it to the territory when she came to form a
State Government, then 20 prohibit or estab-
lish, as is their right and duty.
Inever dreamed, when made that speech,
that any man could hold, at any time, in
this country, that the people of territory
could prohibit property while it was terri
tory. No such question had been raised. No
man had ever promulged that doctrine. If
any man had said to me, that before long
some prominent man in the country would
advocate the doctrine that the people of ter
ritory might exclude slavery, I would say,
'you are crazy or you have a disposition TO
slander somebody that you don't like
Laughter. My speech up there was direct
ed against Congressional interierence-lny
speech up their was directed against Legisla-
tive interference-against the idea Of the
Wilmot proviso, for it had been annexed to
the territorial law of Oregon.
had good mind not TO go out as Govern
or because OF that clause. l would not have
done it if the President had not said was
the only man that would be likely to go in
the winter season. He took me on the weak
side. But went there fully impressed that
Congress had exceeded its power when it un-
dertosk to prohibit that slavery or involun-
tary servitude should not exist in Oregon. It
was against that doctrine that talked in
New Hampshire. was against Congression-
al Intervention for there is not word in the
Constitution that can be construed as author
izing Congress TO prohibit or establish slavery
in the territories, or other property.
A voice-Who signed that bill2
Mr.. Lane-The gentleman asks me what
President signed that bill l will tell my
good friend, know he is a good Irishman.
Voice-So am as sure as you are born.
Mr.. Lane-He is a clever man, and Just
such as have seen lay down their blood on
the battle field. want to say to him that
James K. Polk signed that Oregon bill. He
signed it under protest solemnly protesting
that Congress had no power under the Con-
stitution to prohibit slavery in the Terrific
ries.
Voice. knew him and l know you.
Mr.. Lane-Well James K Polk was great
man and a good one. Twill say to my good
friend of the sweet old green isle, that there
is no man on the face of this earth more gal
liant &C., than Breck.
But to get back to this Oregon bill. James
K. Polk signed it under protest; protesting
against that portion of the bill that under
took to prohibit slavery. said, "Never
mind, the people of Oregon will pay no at
tention to it." and they did not. Slavery
existed there. A majority of the people
were opposed to it, but they were just people
and those that went with slave property en-
joyed it just the same as those who went with
horses, cattle, and SO on, and were protected
in it. No lnan-but a few men--was base
enough to deprive the people of their prop
erty. If he had, he would have had trouble
over his head.