The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1860-02-11
Can't Make Il Stick.

4 few Of the ultra abolition journals and |
Washington Correspondents worked them
selves into quite fight over the late speech |
of Judge Douglas in favor Of passing laws
to prevent any more John Brown raids |
from one state into another. They eA-
claimed at once that, as Judge D. IN that
speech had traced the Harper Ferry raid
directly to the doctrines and teachings OF
the republican party, be must necessarily
advocate the passage Oh q law to suppress
republican party principles If he would
guard against any more such outrages.-
Such . logical conclusion on theirpart may
have been natural enough; but it goes a
great way further than IIr. D. proposed to
60 in his speech.
The Chicago Press & TTiJu5s really
thought, by making furious cutlery about
it in me start, it could make the lie stick,
tina. Judge D. had proposed to punish men
fsr entertaining certain opinions or preach
ing certain political doctrines. 1t hastily
elaaces over Judge D's speech, and then
gives the folIogving az the logic Of il;
/ That It IS the duty Of Congress to in
ouire whetlIer the causes which led to the
Harper's Ferry outrage. still exist.
II. That the doctrines and teachings
Of tho Republics, party are the causes OF
III. That 1t is the duty Of Congress to
punish not only the act, but the intent to
do the act.
Now this IS doing the business UP on thc
usual Press 4: 7Tt5als principle, which is to
falsify what Judge D. did say, and then
assume that nobody else had read his
speech. But the misfortune IS, that in
these days everybody reads Douglas
spee.hes, and the three millions Of voters
who read the one the P 4, Z, tries to per-
vert know very we'll that he advocated no
such oaioas doctrine.
Here IS what Judge Douglas did advo-
cate, as explained in his own words:
At apprehend, sir. that legislation IS ne
cessarr 70 reach the consDiracies Of one
State acainst another; and l specified
clearly in my argument What those con
spiraCies were-a conspiracy in one State
to run OF negroes or slaves from another
State; or 4 conspiracy IN one state TO run
of horses or other property from another
/ referred 10 the boasts OF John Brown, III
g lecture in Cleveland last year, in which
he proclaimed 10 the world that he had
BODY Of men Organized for the purpose Of
steslirr horses from the Shareholders in
Missouri and running them Of for sale;
end he pointed 10 the livery stables IN
Cleveland where the horses were then eX-
posed for sale / spoke Of combinations
end ccnspiracics with q view to oTcrpower
the citizens Of q State al the elections; TO
control their institutions, or 10 subverJ
their government or disturb their people,
or their tranquility in any way. These
were the classes Of conspiracies Of which !
spoke, WHICH do not, in my opinion, come
within the law in respect to treason, which
ought to be punished just as much a trea-
son, and which l propose to provide tor
by law.
Does this say anything about Furnishing
Opinions? Such law as here proposed
wouII-eyen allow some John Brown tc
make speeches in the northern cities urs
ING the formation Of societies to steal al
the negroes, and horses, and even white
babies in the whole south. Such opinions
nor the enunciation Of such projects, Of
any Others, even the widest or most inta
nous, would be punishable under the pre-
posed law; but what Mr. D. does propose
to accomplish would be the prevention Q
secret, oatn-bound associations, actually
organized and at work, from carrying out
such infamous projects. Treason Is not
committed until there : the overt act
Mr. Douglas does not propose to punisl
intstt:5aa. He would arrest men IN theil
unlawful c,sa. So our abolition brethren
may rest easy. Nobody proposes to hang
them for foolish talking It Is only when
they actually commit the crimes they
preach Up that they are in danger