The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1860-09-18
NINTH VOLUME---NUMB MBER 4so.

believe that none of myspeeches in this connec-
tion were prepared by me, exceptb by the briefest
notes. Never was single report of these speeches
revised by me or written out in full The reports
of them are those which various persohs chose to
make l have been amused TO see various por-
tons of what they call the Tippeeanoe speech, and
the divers reports of the reporters, which they
chose to make for the different papers at different
times '-,s
| have in my hand report which reads as fol-
lows in reference to the territorial question: 1.-The
people of the Territories under the Kansas ebras-
ka act, have the full right to abolish or prohibit
savery-which principle is old the Republi-
can Government itself" ,-s S.
Not only did | never utter such a sentiment,
Nut have no reason to believe that anybody even
thought | uttered it. | had never seen it in any
newspaper anywhere but | have time to waste
in comments upon the propriety or delicacy of
gentleman who is before the country for the Office
of President, in introducing the name of one who
is also candidate with me, and giving his per-
sonal testimony AS to that gentemans opinions,
shall waste no time in discussion of the propriety
of such course. | wish to meet the accusation
The Hon. s. A. Douglas, in series of papers
which he has been reading in various States, aud
even recently in Concord n ii Il give his own
language: There is not an honest man la all
America" says Mr. Douglas, THAT will deny that
james Buchanan and John G.. Breckenridge, in
1856, were pledged to the doctrine of non-inter-
venton by Congress with slavery in the Terrific
ries.. MARX the word it is there non-interven-
ton | made speeches from the same stump with
j. G. Breckinndge, in 1856, when he was advo-
eating his own claims to the Vice Presidency, and
heard him go to the extreme length in favor of
popular sovereignty in the Territories" Then,
speaking of other gentlemen from the South, who
had been expressing themselves in the North, he
says: "In every one of the speeches they advoca-
ted squatter sovereignty in its broadest sense.
Here, in the space Of twelve lines, you see non
Intervention and popular-severegn gnty-all evidently
conveying the meaning. That held doc
trines of non-intervention it originally un-
derstood and engratted into the legislation of the
country, | will proceedto show more fully in
another part of my speech. But | presume that
Mr. Douglas, in this statement, meant to declare
that in 1856. from the same stump with me, he
advocated the doctrine that Territorial Legsla-
ture had the power to exclude slave property un-
der territorial conditions; and | also presume that
he uses this expressian in this sense and this is
the question that has been the whole point Of
dispute.
Well at no time either before or after the pas
sage of the Kansas n ebraska bill in Congress, did
ever entertain or utter the opinion that a Terri
toral Legislature prior to the formation Of State
Constitution, had the power to exclude slave pro-
perty from the common Territories of the Union,
and no other advocate of my doctrines can be
found who will substantially charge this express
sion.
Now am to entertain you briefly by as clear an
exposition as | can make of the attitudes Of the
parties in regard to the question at ISSUE In 1894
we removed the restriction Of the Missouri line, and
passed the Kansas-N ebraska bill through both
Houses of Congress, and it became law. The
argument of those, North and South, who appoved
bo If he iolnD WAS hat Iprr
tories should be left open to settlement There
was but one point upon which the friends of the
bill differed. The Southern friends of the meas
ure, and "a few of its Northern friends denied the
power either Of Congress or the Territorial Legis-
lature, to exclude any description ofproperty. he
other party assumed the, ground that the Terrific
rial Legislature had the power of such exclusion.
1t was constitutional question, however, and they
agreed not to make it matter of territorial dispute,
but to insert provision in the bill referring the
question to the Supreme Court for decision; and
all parties bound to abide by the decision
made by this august tribunal upon this constitu-
tional question. We now prove that there was
such AN agreement
Ordinarily a bill cannot be taken from Terri
torial Court to the Supreme Court of the United
States, until the matter in controversy amounts
to thousand dollars and in order that this gues
ton might be tried before the Supreme Court,
clause inserted to meet the contingency. Dur
ing 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 held that the Territorial Le-
gisature did not have the power. Mr. Douglas 4
his friends held That the territorial legislature did
have the power. We suspended thai question and
referred it by bill to the Supreme Court Of the
U. States to determine the constitutional question
therein involved.
There was a body to whom we could refer the
question, and we thought it unnecessary furtherto
debate it, each party agreeing to acquiesce in the
decision as rendered hy the said body L think
that is pretty plain statement on that point
make it to show that there was VOW taken by the
southern friends of the measure in Congress, and
among them by your humble speaker, ito support
the decision.
Mr. Breckenridge here read some extracts from
his speech delivered in the House of Representa-
tives in 1854
We were willing to have the question decided
by the courts of the L. States: Again, say 1t
was coDtended upon the one hand upon the idea
of the equality of the States under the Constltu-
tiop and their common property in the terrltores)
that the citizens Of the slavehodng States may re-
move to the Territories with their slaves, and there
legally hold them until the territory Is resolved
into State.
In that capacity it may exclude them. On the
other hand It is said that slavery being in conflict
with common right, can exist only by the force OF
nositiye law and it is denied that the Court ever
furnished the law. / said that we demand that all
ctizens of the United States shall be allowed to