The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-09-19

Of he said. "if the Constitution authorizes it
b 90 there. no power on earth can take it away
Is yrouId like to see these two statements T
' conciled. fApplause Whether the Const
q tuition did authorize it to go there was que
: ton that be agreed to refer to the Court; an
= then. after the Court decides, he says no ma
e ter how the Court may decide, the people ma
lawfully exclude slavery from the Territories
n and these declarations remain uncontradlcte'
: and not taken back; and he asserts to-day, 9
5 he asserted before, that the people of Ter
3 tory may exclude slave property of the South
/ ern people prior to the formation of Stat
Constitution-that a Territorial Legislator
may do it. "Hence," he says, "no matte
, what way the Supreme Coart may hereats
decide as to the abstract question whethe
slavery may OF may not 60 into Territor.
under the Constitution, the people have tn
lawful means to introduce or exclude it, a
they please, for the reason that slavery canno
exist day or an hour anywhere, unless it il
supported by local police regulations"
| should have thought that the ghost OF tn
Nebraska bill-the spectre of that abused
bill-would have risen up to prevent such :
declaration as this Applause.
say, gentlemen, in answer to the accuse
ton made against me of maintaining this doc
trine, and which have disproved, say it is
not statesmanlike to agree to refer constitu'
tional point to the Supreme Court of your
country, and then, when the Supreme Court
Of your country has decided it, say, it mat
tiers not what way hereafter decided" the
power remains.
| A voice-"That higher law"
| That looks almost as much like higher law
as some higher law we have heard of further
| I cd 4. ,tota
nent but bad example, might say there is
no honest man in the United States, as he said
of me, who can deny that the agreement was
made; that the decision was made in accord
ance with our view Of our Constitution; and
! that the agreement has been violated by the
Senator and his personal adherents, who agreed
to abide by it.
Fellow-citizens, the serious indisposition
under which l have labored for some days,
making it almost impossible for me at times to
see the assemblage before me, makes me un-
able to divide off my speech in proper proper
tons, as l should desire to do, considering the
time l have already occupied your attention.
You will excuse me il, being somewhat de-
sultory in my remarks, | omit some topics to
which should call your attention.
How is this question met? Have | argued
men who entertain the same opinion that l
do-except in manly way, according to our
best ability, and according to our understand
ing of the Constitution Don't we state the
proposition fairly? Don't we state it in the
language of the Supreme Court itself? Don't
we stand upon the Constitution, as adjudged
by that Court, and express our reasons in
temperate, manly, and respectful arguments
Compare the manner in which the Supreme
Court decided the question, with the manner
in which the distinguished gentleman states
the other proposition. How does he state it?
Here are questions upon which the best intel
leets of the country are exercised, engaging
the attention of the wisest and best of men; of
the most augus tribunal on earth; debated in
the Senate and House of Representatives, and
before an anxious people, who want to know
how to act up to the truth. How is the ques-
ton stated, from one end of the country to the
other? The cry is, what? Not that we will
argue with you fairly and temperately, with
out any appeals to secular passions and preju-
dices the question, whether your property is
the same as other property; whether it has
the same rights in the Territories as other
The statement is made that you
shall not force slavery down the threats of an
people The argument consists of
an appeal to the passions of one section of the !
Union against another. Mr.. Douglas himself |
admitted that slave property stands upon the |
same footing with other property. The Su-
preme Court decided that under the Constitu |
tion it stands on the same footing and it has |
the same right to protection in the common
Territories, and that there is no right to ex-
clude it. Then it being conceded point that
there is no difference between property in
slaves and other things during the territorial
condition, why do they seize upon the word t
slave, and appealing to the passions of the
people, say, "you shall not force slavery
down the threats of an unwilling poople.''
Who wants to do it? Does the existence of
The question of the constitutional protection of
private property in the common domain of
his Union until State is formed, which can
AXE charge of property, and determine it, en-
lspgsr th~ Ha;ee2- Substitute the EeEd pro-
,erty for the word slave, and see how it would
ead You attempt to force slavery down
he Threats Of an unwilling people" You at
empt to force property down the threats Of
IN unwilling people, laughter and cheers
md there is no difference between slave and
,ther property, as the Court has decided, and
IS they admit The Territorial Legislature is
he creature Of Congress; Congress is the crea-
.ure of the Constitution; and the Constitution
If the States; and here you would have little
Territorial Legislature, three or four degrees
'emoyed from the source of power, with the
light to exclude the States from their own
lomain. That is the irresistible conclusion.
These are not the doctrines of the Constitu-
ional Democracy. These are not the doc
rines of the Kentucky Opposition either, or
we're not that year. These are not the doc
rines of the Constitution; these are sectional
doctrines. [Cheers.] These are not the doc
rines that make the peace and harmony of
he Union of the States. Cheers. Because
We will not take them, abandoning the old
practice of the Government, and the decision
If the Supreme Court in our favor-because
We will not bow down to a doctrine that de-
,rives us of our rights, and is subversive of
,ur rights-the distinguished Senator said at
Norfolk. we are faction, and must be de-
troyed; when we are destroyed, they will
tick their daggers through the Constitution
If our country. Immense cheering.]
Just here, before | 60 to other matters,
want to say one word in regard to the doctrine
# non-intervention, as it was originally I'M +,
lerstood, and which is now mixed upsto con-
nse the people with the expressions Popular
and " Squatter So, ereignty"
The names of Clay, Webster and others
ave been I1YOkeQ 10 SuStHIfl= ILLS QOctf1He.
Fhe local fact Of the Missouri Compromise of |
$50 has been invoked for the same purpose.
assert that from 1848 down to the present ,
'eriod, when this false doctrine
like to the Constitution and reason-was (,
hrust upon the country. no respectable po-
ltical party held the opinion that Territorial
legislature had right to exclude slave prop
.rty pending its territorial condition. When
lid Clay ever hold such an opinion9 When
we're such doctrines embodied in the Com
promise measures Of 1850? When was such
/ doctrine in the Clayton Compromise of 1848, /
Of which you have heard so much, and which
was defeated by small vote? s',at-E I
They all looked to the period when they
should come into the Union as State, as the
time when the territorial authorities might act
on the subject of property, and hold or to
exclude the slave property of the South. Zap.
plause.
Time, fellow citizens, will not allow me to
do much more than state the propositions; but
| will read short abstracts from the celebrates |.
report made by the committee of thirteen, Of +
which Mr.. Clay was chairman, which resulted
in the Compromise measures of 1850. Listen
to it, pray. It is calm, lucid, has no clap
trap phrases and puts me in mind Of the Ian
gnage used by the Supreme Court
Mr.. B. read from the report in the Con-
Globe, Vol. q, part l, page 1861
:. A voice-That is the true doctrine.
What was non-interyention then? What
was non-intervention in 1850? 1t was to or
ganize territorial governments, open them up
to the common settlement of the people of the
United States, from all the States No legis-
lation on the part of Congress in regard to
slavery, nor by the Territorial Legislature
during the territorial condition; but leaving it |
to the people Of Territory, when they shall |
have attained to condition which entities /
them to admission as a State, to decide for /
themselves. sska
- That was non-intervention, and that non |
Intervention would have been felt in this re- |
suit You would have gone in5with your
slaves, and the citizen of Ohio with his prop |
erty; and il anybody thought you had not q |
right to hold your property there, the individ- |
nal could have tested the question before the |
Court; and If the decision had been against |
him, there could have been no hostile action, |
and you would have enjoyed your property in |
peace and quiet. It is as much violation Of