The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1860-10-03

HON. 10 c. BRECKENRIDGE,
DELIVERED a. 49,
At Ashland, near Lexington, n.y.
September s, lS6O.
IcoNcLUDED.l

| 4
icoScLUDED.
Substitute the word property" for the word
slaves since slave and other property have
been shown to stand on the game footing, and
see how it would read:
"You shall not force Slavery down the throats
Of an unwilling people" ,., d. .. s.ss -..s-.
"You shall not force property down the
throats Of an unwilling people," Laughter and
applause.
Why, the territorial authority is the creature
/ Of Congress; Congress is the creature of the
Constitution; the Constitution is the creature Of
the States-and here you would have little
Territorial Legislature three or four degrees re-
moved from the original source OF power, with
the right to exclude all States OF the Union,
with all their property, from their own domains.
[Applause.] This is the irresistible conclusion.
These are not the doctrines Of the constitution
al Democracy. [Cheers.l These are not the
doctrines of the kentucky Opposition, or at
least they were not last year. These are not
the doctrines Of the Constitution ITSELF These
are sectional doctrines; [cheers;] these are not
the doctrines that make for the peace AMI har-
mony Of the union Of the States. [Cheers. l.
And forsooth because we will not take them
and abandon the whole practice of the Govern
ment and the decision Of the Supreme Court;
because we will not bow down to doctrine
that deprives us Of our rights-we are boilers
demagogues, secessionists, disunionists! icon
tinued applause. The distinguished Senator
from Illinois, said at Norfolk, we are "facton
and must be destroyed" When. we are de.
stroyed, they will have struck their daggers
through and through the Constitution of their
country. Immense applause ..
Just here, my friends, want to say a word
about The doctrine Of non intervention, which
is adroitly mixed up with the phrases Popular
Sovereignty" and "Squatter Sovereignty with
view to confuse the people. 4&##H
| The names of Clay Webster and other emf
| nent statesmen have been invoked to sustain
this doctrine Of territorial power, and the COM
promises of 1850 have been invoked for the
same purpose. assert that from 1SfS down
to the period when this false doctrine, repug.
nant alike to the Constitution and reason, was
thrust upo.i the country no respectable politi-
cal party held the opinion that Territorial
Legisla' ure had the righ. to define or exclude
property, pending the territorial conditian.--
Wien did Clay ever hold such doctrines?--
When were such doctrines ever embodied in
the Compromise measures of 1850? The legis-
lation OF that period shows that non sinterven.
ton was meant to apply equally 10 Congress
and to tie Territorial government
/ The sfatesmeneof that lay looked to the pc.
riod when they should come into the Union as
la State, as the time when the territorial author.
tiles might act on the subject Of property, and
hold or exclude the slave property oithe South.
| I(Applause. q II ss@ si2.tst @
! Time will not allow me TO do much more
than state these propositions, but / will read
short extracts from the celebrated report made
| by the Committee Of Thirteen, (of which Mr.
Clay was charmsn,) which resulte in the com
promise measures Of 1850. 1t is calm, lucid,
has no clap trap phrases, and it tone is like the
clear and elevated language Of the Supreme
Court: Br
fIt is high time that the wounds which it
has Inflicted should b. heated up and closed,
and that TO avoid in all future time the
agitation W hich must be produced by the con-
| tict OF opinion on the slavery gu stion--exiat
iDe as this institution does in some ofthe States
and prohibited as it is in others, the true prin
ciple which ought to regulate the action OF
Congress in forming territorial governmt nis for
each newly acquired domain, is to refrain from
all legislation on the subject in the territory &C.
quired, SO long az it retains the territorial form
Of government. leaving the people Ct such ter
ritory when they have attained to condition
which entities them to admission as a State to
decide for themselves the question of the allow.
ance or prohibition ofdomestic slavery Ap-
plau>e--A voice, "Ihat is true doctrine"l
That, gentlemen, was non-intervention in
1850. 1t was no interference to exclude by
Congress, or the territorial legislature, but 10
leave the question to be decided by the people
when they come TO form their State Constitu
ton. |, is as much a violation OF the doctrine
Of non intervention for q Territorial Legisla
ture under Mr. Douglas bran new theory, t.
exclude slave property, as it would bc for Con
gress to introduce it by positive law. .r.-
Here is the opinion OF Webster, uttered abou
the same time, in the Senate, upon this ques
ton Of Territorial power:
1--WE have always gone upon the ground tha
these territorial governments were in a stat.
of pupilage, under the protection or patronage
of the general government. The territorial leg
stature has Constitution prescribed by Cor
gress. They have no power not given by the
} Congress. They must act within the limits 0
the Constitution granted them by Congress, o.
else their acts become void. The people undel
the territorial government are not a sovereign
} ~; they do not constitute a sovereignty, and dt
not possess any OF the rights incident to sover
;eignty., They are if you SO please to denom
nate II, in state OF inchoate government anC
sovereignty. II We well consider this question
upon the gronnd of our practice during the las
half century, think we will find but one wa,
of disposing OF it. 1t is our duty to provd,
for the people OF the Territory government Il
keep the peace, to secure their property. to assigr
to them subordinate legislative authority, /,
see that The protection Of their persons and the SO
curity Of their property are all regularly provide,
for and to maintain them in that state unit
they gso,o into sufficient Importance, in point 0
Ipopalatioa, u dsadmittea into the Union as
State upon the same footing Nth the origiaa
, States" $500 LII, .. ~ b
Do you suppose that Daniel Webster, afto
the opinion ofthe Supreme Court which hav
read to you, would have considered it becomin
in him as an american statesman, to point ou
some contrivance or device by which the Terri