Year: 1859

We have read the speech. and while there are some things in it that we approve. there are others that we never can and never will assent to. The doctrine of climate, soil and production is one that we have taken ground against and shall ever oppose. Of what avail IS It to uphold the Dred Scott decision when Senetor Douglas shows us how to drive coach and six through it?

 Even the Appeal, the fast friend of Mir. Dou- glas, objects to these doctrines and damrs the speech with faint praise, as follows:

 It would seem to be unnecessary that we should specially remark upon the speech of the distinguished Senator of Illinois, delivered in thls city. As far as the principles announced and expounded are concerned, there is no diff ference in substance, between it's tenor. and the speeches of Judge Douglas made in Illinois. during the late exciting canvass. The doctrine of the Freeport speech is somewhat more ex- plicitely stated and the argument more elabo- rated. And yet although it may practically appear, from the mode of reasoning. that the doctrine that territory may omit to legislate for Inc protection of slavery, aud thereby fail ade1uately to protect slave property; and there Is no remedy for it. there being no constitutional

 

 to act vet we would have been better satisfied with Judge Douglas position if he had declar ed, that the territories being the common prn- perty of all the States. aleguate protection of the property of all is what they have right to expect while they remain territories. We hold it to be the right of the people of the south to carry their slaves to the territories of the United States. and to demand that they shall be protected in their possession. The illustra- ton furnished by Judge Douglas relative to the taxation of horses the license upon merchants anl the prohibition of the sale of liquors, un- doubtedly falls within the province of local legislation in the territories. And so would taxation upon slaves or license for the sale of slaves. But possession and enjoyment of pri- vate property is another question, and in order to possess and enjoy it, it is necessary to pass laws to prevent the trespass upon private right to all species of property. That kind of pro- lection ought to be adequate and not mere mockery. Our admiration for the character, services and general soundness of J dge Doug las cannot blind us to the fact, that he does not -come up to the standard which has hitherto been approved by the state rights democracy on this point.

 We should have been glad to have seen him go one step farther and sanction the doctrine proclaimed by Senator Davis of Mississippi, that the right exists in the protection of slave property, by virtue of the territories being the common property of all the States and if un- fortunately that right is denied before a terri tory comes to form her state constitution, or the local law omits adequately to protect the { owner of slaves, it arises from the failure to provide remedy for the evil. Unfortunately Tor us. there is no remedy for such a condition of things but revolution, and it would be for the people of the south themselves to deter. mine, on the occurrence of such an event, whether the evil is of sufficient magnitude to justify a resort to the remedy. In other re- spects, Judge Douglas speech was unexcept- ionable if we except his views concerning Le- compton, with which it is well known we do not agree"