Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1860-09-25

/ portion OF hls audience only his ihclne was
Popular Sovereignty, and Neutrality-suspicious. y
4 In the Of his remarks he asserted ..ihat
/ louis hossuih came To this country as cham
pion Of the principle of non intervention, feel
| ing aggrieved at the Intervention Of Austria in
the 20, eminent of Hungary"
II read Alright, for many generations past.
the Emrerors of Austria have been crowned
| kings Of Hungary. and Louis kossuth with the
/ rest Of his countrym were subjects OF Francis
Joseph, king of unCaFy well as Emperor
Of Austria Their king had destroyed their
constitutional torn Of govern men,, and planted
| his foot upon their religious liberties which
produced an Instruction, rebellion. an act OF
treason against the powers that be, and Kos
suth's mission 10 England. America aud else
| whore was to enlis; The sympathles. mental and
material. of the people of The countries he visit
| ed, in the behalf of what the Emperor STYLED
his "rebellious subjects, so that in case Of any
future attempt at rebellion against his tyranny.
those countries nigh. Interfere to prevent any
coalition among the sbso!utiss of Europe that
might prevent Tie success Off fellow coun-
trymen: refer you for proof OF this 10 De Puy's
| .-koss'Ith and his Generals" where in one q
he speeches introduced. IN that work, Kos
suth points out Eis mission, one that desires
int-rucntioai
Perhaps kossulh made a mistake ane did not
know his business and Intervention; pity but
/ the Judge could have been presented to hin
! to put him right thai point.
! The Hon. Judge spoke of John c. Calhoun as
a great exposi tor OF the doctrine of non-inter-
I veniion, and Observed "Mat parcr statesmen,
/ than he 'screr !irad" Il may be 50, but Presi-
/ dent jackson. oil Hickory seemed to have a
different opinion of las pure statesnaanship and
its effects, when he crusc cd out the nullifiers
and their leader, the p,ae j. c. Calhoun.
/ Judge Crawford did not speak very long, and
made way for Mr. J. II. Clary, who. amid much
gesticulation. challenged any one TO discover
in the creed of the Democratic party, one acord
lhat shows anything Ike disposition to ex-
tend slavery and proposed TO give any man
who should do so $1,000. He said "you Pc
publicans assert that Congress have the right
and ought TO lesslate against those twin rel
les of barbarism." slavery aud poly gamy' in the
/ territories Now we deny" lie said, chat
+ Congress has any power to legislate against or
for slavery in the Territories; it should ba left
to say all that shall be said upon that ques-
! ton, &c Now sir, beg leave to call your
attention to one fact; that when polygamy in
/ in the territories is introduced It is generally
/ disposed Of as quietly as possible.
The reason seems 10 be this. one of two po-
sitons must be taken, either that Cougres. has
the power to prohibit polygany and by impli-
cation, slavery In the territories. or. that Con-
gress has not power. and therefore a territory
may establish polygamy and slavery within its
borders, TIL 1t becomes a State, and remain
SUCH holding the twin relics" in spite of the
laws of God and man But sir. If you look at
/ the record you viii find that when the Bal to
suppress polyga'ay and purify the morality OF
. a certain territory u > in the Congress OF
the United States, go out OF 100 Democrats vo-
ted against its passage Thank God. no; a Re
publican name is found on the shameful record
But 46 of those Democratic Representatives
voted 10 suppress polygamy; it follows them
that in their opinion, Congress has The power
70 prohibit one peculiar institution" one
twin relic Of barbarisn;" why then has it not
power TO prohibit the other? The answer made
this: that slave Is property" and the
Constitution guarantees peacabe enjoyment to
every one oftheir property aeIatcrer tie proper
>, .,,,,. !. -~ha.,,..- ~. ro,s,,tutior al
now Iedood TO he tho law # the land ., Te, n.
Iool, At fI,is ,,or,a,. DooetLe Constitution,
of tho !-,i,cd ST.. ,I,.1oro ,,tot o,,,..,,,..s
nrorart,, D,es ~. f-,,,s,i,,,ioo ot--s., Wis-
eausin decl,ra VIA, constructs ,,rorertv2 Docs
either of them say that p negro can H., made
property? 1t must follow then HAT negro is !
nor property. constitutionaIlv. How does he
then become rruierty? BytLe laws OF the To- |
caliy where he may be held As property. For
instance, III Tennessee. negro may be proper |
tv. because the laws of Tennessee recognize.
hlm Is such, but in W iscousin he is not prop |
eriy. because the laws Of Wisconsin do not re-
crsuizo him a. such. Now what the law I
governing territory? Is At not the Consttu /
u'n Of the United States, and such acts may +
be deemed ueediul by Congress, and the Off +
Gals deputed by tie Executive at v ashius tou? +
Ne have already seen that The Constitution
not only does not recognize 4 negro as proper I
y, but docs not define what property IS; now I
l ask 10y what law can negro be held in /
.erritory a. property? 1t IS evident that law /
must be made expressly TO recognize him rs /
property, before sla, eAolder can hold slave /