Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1860-07-18
HON. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.

way to Boston, and that his friends would give
him a reception at the depot in Washington
Square, drew out a large crowd, there being
in it quite as many land probably many
more) republicans than democrats line
salute was fired, and Mr.. Douglas, being
introduced by Hon. Isaac Davis, made
short speech. 1t was not his ntennon'
he said, to discuss the political issues OF
the day. but it is not in his nature to make q
speech under such circumstances and not
touch them He is vastly too combatise, and
too positive in his character, to repress every
impulse in that direction; and there is no
good reason why he should. We like to hear
a man speak out what is in him, and not con-
fine his talk to the Compliments of the sea-
son" and to remarks on the weather, because
he happens to be in nomination for the presi-
dency. 1t is not the fact that he speaks out,
but the quality and bearing of what he says
that should be criticized.
His speech was chiefly devoted to such
statement of his doctrine of popular sovereign
ty as he usually makes when addressing
northern audiences. He explained this doc
trine to mean the right of the people to
govern themselves and manage their own
affairs in their own way and he evil
IDENTIFY wished to have it supposed that
this is the doctrine he has maintained
lately on the stump and in the senate, al.
though, if catechised in the senate, or any
where else in hearing of the whole country, he
would, of course, introduce such additions
and notifications to the statement as would
change it entirely Mr.. Douglas never has in
his life advocated the right of the people in the
territories to govern themselves and manage
their own affairs in their own way nor does he
contemplate anything but the slavery question
when he talks of "non-ntervention - he never
dreams of applying it to anything but the
slavery question: nor of having any body sup
pose that he applies it to anything else and
those who may be inclined to believe that his
popular sovereignty" means even so much as
the right of the people of territory to decide
for themselves whether slavery shall or shall
not be introduced among them, should read
his speeches in the senate, and study his posi-
ton until they understand it. He denies the
right of the people in a territory to prohibit
fully go among them, as property; and he new |
err speaks the subject, in the senate, without |
repeating substantially the following declara-
ton made by him in speech delivered in
New Orleans in December, 1858:
'tSlares are regarded as property and are placed
on equal footing with all other property. Hence
the owner Of slaves-the same as the owner
OF any other species OF property, has right to
reaoUe to any territory and carry his property nth
him"
After making this declaration and reiterat
ing it great many times, it is not becoming
in Mr.. Douglas to pretend anywhere that his
doctrine allows the people of a territory to be
perfectly free to decide for themselves what
shall be the nature and character of their in.
situations" His doctrine, as explained by
himself, allows slavery to go into the
territories with all the rights and priv.
leges and prerogatives of property Last
May, in the senate, in discussion with JEFF
ferson Davis, he explained that if a territorial
legislature should unconstitutionally prohibit
slavery, such legislation would be repealed,
not by congress, but by the supreme court.
In the course OF this discussion he used these
words 1.-THE courts will pronounce their
enactments void, and the whole power of the
government must be exerted to carry the judi
cial decree into effect" Is this non-interyeno
ton :! Is this popular sovereignty" when
"the whole power of the government must |
be employed in the territories to suppress the
will of the people? Mr.. Douglas would have
,;nI-e III L I 81 .I,a
black side of his doctrine in his quiet little
alks with people in the free states. mo per
son can be mised in regard 10 his views, who
will follow his record carefully from the repeal
of the Missouri compromise down to his ac-
ceptance Of the nomination for the presiden-
cy.
Among democrats, the feeling in favor of
MIR. Douglas, as well as that against him, is
chiefly personal. He has been opposed vehe-
mently because his established supremacy in
the party would destroy, and bury out of
sight in political graves, several regiments of
leading democrats who claim a right to be
rulers and oracles And the feeling in his
favor has no reference whatever to any view
OF popular sovereignty and the slavery ques-
ton. To see how little his views on
popular sovereignty have to do with the
split of the democratic party, we need on
ly compare the platform of his party with
that of the Breckenridge party, and examine
the record of leading democrats with whom
he is now acting. We can see no real differ
ence between the two platforms; and, among
his present associates may be found some of
the most rabd slavery extremists, and, fore
most among them, Herschel V. johnson, the
candidate for the vice presidency. Mr.. John
son holds that slavery is a divine institution,
and declares in the boIdest and most unequiv-
ocal way, that Capital should own labor !;
not merely that white white men should own
negroes and patronize the African slave trade,
but that capital should own labor, without
regard to its color or nationality and on
"non.interyention" he declares himself in this
style =
property of all kinds, slave as weH as any
other, stands upon the same constitutional ba
sis and subject 10 the same principles Of recogni-
ton and PROTECTION in the LEGISLA-
TIVE, Judicial and executive departments of tie
general government"
Mr. John w. NOEL, democratic candidate
Tor congress in the seventh district of Missouri
has issued manifesto announcing his adhe-
sion to Douglas and johnson, wherein he saws:
ut Is wen known that | am and ever have
peeh opposeu 10 the doctrine of squatter SOW.
ereignty, as IT Is sometimes called / have
rppa nod md