Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-11-01

sembled at Magnolia Hall, last evening, to
listen to an address from the Hon. Geo. II.
Pugh, of Ohio, on the political questions of
the day. The speaker commenced his adj
dress by referring to the political equality
and independence of the several States,
showing that each one had the power to
regulate its own local affairs, according to
the will of its people, and independently of
any control by the General Government.
He instanced as illustrative of this, the
present naturalization law of Massachusetts,,
and the property qualification for voters in
New York, Rhode Island, and other States,
and argued from this that as every State had
manifestly the right to determine the quail
ications Of its voters it also had the power
to regulate the social status of all other per-
sons within its bounds, and that this power
was confined to the people of each State;
| Congress having no such power.
But Mr.. Breckenridge and his friends
claimed that it was the duty of Congress to
protect the property of every citizen of the
country, whatever that property might con-
sist in. Let us apply common sense to this
statement, and see if it be true. Suppose
citizen of Kentucky should emigrate to
Kansas carrying with him his slaves, his
hogs, his whisky and-say keg of powder.
On arriving at Leavenworth, he turns his
hogs loose in the street to pick up what they
can, but there happens to be city ordinance
in Leavenwo rth, forbidding hogs to run at
large, and so they get put in the pound.
Will he call for Congressional interference
to protect his hOgs2
Then he attempts to sell his whisky there
at retail, but the city authorities forbid him
to sell until he has purchased license. Will
he appeal to Congress on the ground that
the whisky is his property, and must be
protected2
His powder is left in situation where it
is liable to take fire, and he is informed that
he must place it in the hands ofthe licensed
dealer, who will use special precaution for
its safety, or it will be taken from him.
Would any body claim that he was unjustly
treated2 No. He held his property there,
subject to the local laws of the place, and it
was his duty, as q good citizen, to obey
those laws. Even Mr.. Yancey himself, would
acknowledge the justice of this in each of
the cases he had mentioned; but when the
same man brings his slaves into the Terri
tory, and the people object to his holding
them, then Mr. Yancey cries out for
Congressional interference, to force slavery
into the Territory in opposition to the wishes
of the people.
property in negroes, but he wished them to
stand in the same position as any other
property.
But then, on the other hand, we hear a
great deal about the ordinance of 1887,
drawn up by Thomas jefferson, which was
declaredto dedicate all the Territories of the
United States to freedom, and Mr.. Yancey
in his late speech at Florence had a good
deal to say about the ordinance of 1874, pre-
scribing Congressional Government for the
Territories. Mr.. Yancey was not as we'll
posted in our national history as he should
have been. There was no such ordinance of
1884. There was a report of a committee, OF
which Mr.. Jefferson was chairman, which
report contained the famous clause so often
referred to as Jefferson's ordinance, but this
clause was stricken out before the report was
accepted.
The speaker then went on to give an
elaborate review of the action of Congress in
regard to the Territories ever since the forma-
tion of the Government, showing that the
design has always been to leave the people
of each Territory as much as possible at
liberty to act as they pleased. Had this
principle always been followed, all this
trouble and annoyance about the everlasting
negro would have been avoided. The fol-
lowers of Mr.. Yancey were the persons
really responsible for the evils of which they
now so loudly complain, and they alone
must bear the blame.
The whole design of the Breckinrldge fac
tiOn was to throw the election into the SEN
ate, in order to elect Joe Lane; but even in
this they would be disappointed. The con-
troVersy in the Democratic party would give
the election to the Republicans, and the
Breckenridge faction must bear the blame
of it.
STREET-oPENIYG IN THE Cry COUNCIL
An intelligent member of the City Council
has made out the following list Of streets
for the opening of which, it is supposed
Council will be importuned within the next
year
Linn-street from Eighth to Court, $780,
OOO
Linn-street, from George to Sixth, $l5,'
00O
Cutter-street, from Eighth to Richmond
$4,000.
Ninth-street, from Freeman to Carr, $1,'
500.
Ninth-street from Carr to Harriet, So, 500
Harriet-street, from George to White
water Canal, $4,000.
! Harriet-street, from Eighth to North
; $4,000.
f 6est-street, to Millcreek Bridge, $4,000.
, Court-street, from Freeman to Harriet
$4,000. r......
Seventh-street, from Carr east 100 feet
$4,000.
J Stone-street, from Fifth to Sixth, $4,000
Longworth-street from Stone eastward
$4,000.
Fayior-street, from Freeman to Carr
$4,000.
! Sloo-street, to Carr, $1,000. ~.
! Lock-street, from Third to Front, $4,000
Oourt-street from Broadway to Collard
$4,000. ...r ...t....
Wanut-hills-avenue, from Broadway II
Mcmillan, $50, 900.
Q Harrison and Fourth-streets cost not esti