Crawfordsville Review, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County, 8 September 1860 — Page 1

NEW SERIES-VOL. XII, NO. 8

For the Times and Herald.

Rtl'dLAT MPVLAIOOVKKKICXTTV

RECORD—VERSUS HIS

•'SECTIONAL SLANDERERS.

LAIL IBM THE CT. SMBMKI

Although I did not hear hit speech at South bend, yet he gave me fifteen points of his attack on Douglas* record to prove hifl inconsistencies, and that he is not bona fide committed to Popular Sovereignty.

Wc arc satisfied, First, That these fifteen points cmbracc the general stock of misrepresentation in scctional spccches and newspapers and that Mr. Godfrey lias taken all these points second handed, and without pcrsonil examination of the record: Secondly from a personal inspection of the record, that they arc cruel slandcrs on Mr. Douglas' record

Ought you to bear false witness against your neighbor Saturday night, and then Subbath morning preach repentance to othcrB

Wo promised Mr. Godfrey that, if wc found his representations true, wc would not support him: That if the record proved that Douglas was inconsistent in his advocacy of Popular Sovereignty—had even advocated slavery or its extension, or shown that he bad no choice in favor of free institutions over slavery, or was not unmistakably committed to the right of the people in the Territories to govern themselves—in either case we would not vote for him. This is the substance of. our pledge'

DOUGLAS IN

1849-50.

MR. CODFIIEY'S POINTS.—1.

Mr. Doug

las said at Springfield, III., Oct, 23, 1849, thai the Missouri Compromise was constitutional. 2. That in 1850 [Con. Globe, vol. 22, *npp., part 1, page 470.] Douglas defended the Missouri Compromise as constitution«al against Calhoun.

Having no means of referring to Mr. Douglas' speech at Springfield, Oct. 23, IS40, wc shall consider it sufficient to defend Mr. 1). from advocating doctrines in that speech, and in the Senate in 1850, by rcfercnco to his speech in the Senate only, reported in the Globe on the page referred to by Mr.

Mr. Butler said: They acquiesced in it. IM». Comp.| its ti peace offering as compromise, and nut as a giving up of their rights.

Mr. Douglas. I so understand it. Mr. Hutler. Throughout the whole discussion, 1 think lie, (Mr. Calhoun) took oecasion to .say, though ho acquiesced in it, l:e did not approve it.

Mr. Douglas. It was offered by inc anu received in ihnt spirit. low then ran the exclusion of (lie South or of slavery from Oregon, be set down to iho point of Northern aggressions oil Southern grievances The North had no hand in it—nothing to do with it. it was the deliberate and exclusive act of the people of Oregon themselves. It was done in obedience to that great Democratic principle, that it is wiser and better to leave cach comimiuily to determine and regulate its own legal and domestic affairs in its own way. It was done in the same way that slavery has recently been prohibited in the new State of California, by the free and united action of the people inhabiting the country. This principle of action first introduced free institutions upon this continent.

On the Compromise of 1850, June 17th, Douglas said in the Senate It is questioned, I sec no reason why we should not express when it comes in our way, what wc believe to be the true constitutional doctrine. I believe the people have a right to do as they please, when thejr form a constitution, and no matter what domestic regulations they may make, they have a right to come into the Union, if there is nothing in their constitution which violates the constitution of the United States. 1 have always held, that the people have a right to settle these questions us they choose, not only when they come into the Union as a State, but they tdiould be permitted to do so while a Territory. If 1 have ever recorded a vote contrary to that priuciplc, even as applicable to the Territories, it was done under the influence of the pressure of an authority higher than my own will. Each and every vote I have given contrary to that principle, is the vote of those who sent ine here, and not my own. I have faithfully obeyed my instructions.—lb. p. 511. 3. That Douglas said, as recorded on the 31st page of the same volume of the (•lobe, that slavery can be prohibited by Congress or Territorial Legislature."

It is said that Douglas in his New Orleans speech, in order to help himself to the Presidency by Southern influence, used the following words That slaveholders have a right under the Constitution, to cmigratc to the Territories with their slaves ns proporty and hold them there as any other property is held."

IIow then is fill property held in the Territories The wilderness has no law. People carry no law with them there. There can be no local law then, till the people make its For the National government regulates national rights, but not the local rights of property. All rights of property there exist only, and are held only, by local law, whether in slave or chattel. Douglas in tho Senate, March 13, 1850, on tho Territorial question, used the following language

But you say wo propose to prohibit by law your emigrating to the Territories with your property. We propose no such thing. Wo recognize your right, in common with our own, to emigrate to tho Territories with your property, and there hold and enjoy it, in subordination to the law you may find in force in tho country. These laws differ in some respects from oar own, as tho laws of various States of this Union

4ft-

vary, on some points, from the laws of each other. Some species of property arc, excluded by law in most of the States as well as the Territories, as being unwise, immoral, or contrary to the principles of sound public policy. For instance, the banker is prohibited from emigrating to Minnesota, Oregon, or California with his bank. The bank may be property by the laws of New York, but ceases to be so when taken into a State or Territory, where banking is prohibited by the local law. So ardent spirits, whisky, brandy, all the intoxicating drinks, are recognized and protected as property in most of the States but no citizen whether from the North or South, can take this species of property with him, and hold, sell, or use it at his pleasure, in all the Territories, because it is prohibited 6y local law—iu Oregon by the Statutes of the Territory—nor can a man go there and take and hold.his slave for the same reason.

I have already had occasion to remark that at the adoption of the Constitution there vrcro twelve iiTavchoJding States, and only one free State and of these twelve, six of them have since abolished slavery. This shows that the cause of freedom has steadily and firmly advanced while slavery has receded in the same ratio. Wc all look forward with confidence to the time when Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri, and probably North Carolina and Tennessee, will adopt a gradual system of emancipation, under the operation of which those States must in time become free.

Will you annex all Mexico If you do at least twenty out of the twenty-two will be free States, if the law of the foundation of the earth, the ordinance of nature, or the will of God is to be respected," or if the doctrine shall prevail of allowing the people to do as they please.

Wc must look at these things as they exist, and talk frankly and plainly about them. These may be unpalatable truths to some gentlemen, but it is well their attention should be called to them, that they examine them, and decidc for themselves whether they are not undeniable truths.— [Appendix to Congressional Globe, vol. 22, p. 1,371.

rc^ve

It was use-1

less to attempt to conceal the fact, that the {l!,"^{cr ®P?C0'1

slavery, question was the disturbing ele- 1 Cong. Globe, App. G5 and 68. ment which kept up-the agitation and do-1 lagc 05, Mr. Douglas said prived the people of the Territories of At the close of the long session which land and government. The North desired adopted those mciisurcs (Compromises of that the whole country should be free. The South naturally desired that the country should be open to their peculiar institutions, but without any well grounded expectation that slaver}' would ever go there. The South, said, however, that while such were her wishes in this respect, she did not insist on any legislation iu her favor that she only insisted on the point of honor, that she should not be excluded by any act of Congress. That she would cheerfully submit fo be excluded by the natura' course of events, by the law of nature, of climate, and of production, or by the decision of the people inhabiting the country but she denied the right of this government to exclude her peculiar institutions from the Territories of the United States when the people of those Territories are not represented here that it was a violation of the Constitution, and of the principles of our institutions.—[Ibid, 872.

I have read page 371, and find Mr. Douglas said no such thing as lie is charged with saying, and that the accusation is unfounded in fact. 4. That in .Tune, 1^50, [Conr. Globe, Vol.21, Part 2, page 115,| Douglas said

It is not proper to say Congress has not the power to prohibit slavery in the Territories." will give Douglas' language on the same day

Mr. Douglas—I wish to say one word before this bill is voted upon. [Page 114.] I must confess that I rather regretted that, a clause hail been introduced into the bill providing that the Territorial governments should not legislate in respect to African shivery. The position that I have ever taken has been, that this and nil other questions relating to the domestic policy of the Territories ought to be left to the decision of the people themselves—I do hope yet that the clause in the bill will be stricken out. It ought not to be there be cause it is a violation of priuciplc—a vio lation of that principle upon which we have all rested our defense of the course wc have taken on this question. I do not sec how those of us who have taken the position wc have taken, that of non-inter-fcrcticc, and have argued in favor of the right of the people to legislate for them selves on this question, can support such a provision, without abandoning all the arguments which wo urged in the Presidential campaign in the year 1848, and the principles set forth in the Nicholson Letter (by Cass.) Wc arc required to abandon that platform, wc arc required to abandon those principles, and to stultify ourselves and to adopt the opposite doctrinc. [P. 115 referred to by Godfrey.] Douglas says on the same day The government contended for authorizing them (the people of the Territories) to protect property in horses, in cattle, in merchandize, and property of every kind and description, real and personal but the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis) says you must exclude African Slavery. They make the distinction that the people of the Territory arc to govern themselves in respect to the right in all kinds of property, but African laves. I want to know by this exposition

upon what principle is it made And, sir,

it, to whom do you reserve

it To this Congress No Sir, you deny it to the people and to tho eo«rnmenl hero.

Mr. Downs I ask the Senator whether he did not vow for and approve tho Claytnn flnmnmmisA Kill

ton Compromise bill Mr. Douglas—That would not prove a great deal. I struggled then as I do now for the principle I am contending for. That bill was hatched up in my absence, from a necessity which all will acknowledge. I got back just time enough to vote on the question, and after all other things had failed, I did vote for that bill rather than have no government at all. But, sir, whilst that was the case, I did not approve

of that principle, and I do not approve of it now. I had from necessity, when forced upon me by others, voted for a bill contain itig such a clause. I do not hold the doc trine that to excludc any species of prop crty by law from any Territory is a violation of any right to property. Do you not exclude banks from most of the Territories Do you not cxclude whisky from being introduced into large portions of the United States Do you not exclude gambling tables, etc., etc. Page 1116. It is the prohibition of a specific kind of property and not a prohibition against any section of the Union. I am not therefore prepar ed to say that, under the Constitution, we have not the power to pass laws, excluding negro slaves from the Territories. It involves the same principle. But I do say that if left- to myself to carry out my own opinions, I would leave the whole subject to the people of the Territories themselves and allow them to introduce or excludc slavery as they may sec proper. I believe tins is the principle on which our institutions rest.

Can any honest or candid man deny that Douglas is unmistakably committed to Popular Sovereignty in '49 and '50. Then quote the record verbatim.

DOUGI.AS IN

1851—2.

5. Douglas says [Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, p. 350] It is no violation of Southern rights for Congress to prohibit slavery in the Territories.

No such thing is said there that wc can find. 6. Douglas on the constitutional prohibition says [Ind., Part 1, p. 373,] under instruction he will vote Congressional prohibition in New Mexico, and has no disposition to break loose.

There is not a word of the kind on that page of the Congressional Globe. 7. Douglas said he would run the Missouri Compromise line through, if it were not for the position of California being a State. [App. Cong. Globe, Vol. 22, Part 2, p. 1150.

There is no such record on tha page of that volume. Douglas said lie would never make

s'avcry

i" Congress.—

1850,) I resolved never to make another speech on the slavery question in the halls of Congress. I regard all discussion of that question here as unwise, mischievous, and out ot place. \ct

the course of

this debate certain points have been presented to the public view in connection with my coursc which require me briefly to respond.

In the same speech, p. GS, Mr. Douglas "nl-v

Immediately on my return home to my constituents, and in that same Chicago spcccli to which 1 referred, I renewed mv protest against those votes, and repeated the notice to that excited and infuriated meeting that they were their votes and not mine.- I will detain the Senate a moment while I read a passage from that speech.— Speaking of the Territorial bills, I say

These measures arc predicated on tho great fundamental principle that every people ought to possess the right of forming and regulating their own internal concerns and domestic institutions iu their own way. It was supposed that those of our fellow citizens who emigrated to the shores of the Pacific and to our other Territories, were as capable of self government as their neighbors and kindred whom

they left behind them and there was no reason for believing they had lost any of!c'v"

tlieir intelligence or patriotism by the way-

adapted to their condition and interests as wc were who never saw the country and know very little about it. To question their competency to do this was to deny their capacity for self-government. If they have the requisite intelligence and honesty to be entrusted with the enactment of laws for the government of white men I know of no reason why they should not be deemed competent to legislate for the negro. If they are sufficiently enlightened to make laws for the protection of life, liberty and property, of morals and education—to determine the rolation of husband and wife, of parent and child—I ain not aware that it requires any higher degree of civilization to regulate the affairs of master and servant. These things are confided by the Constitution to cach State to decidc for itself, and I know of no reason why tho same principle should not be extended to the Territories. My votes and acts have been in accordance with these views ia all eases, except the instances in which I have voted under your instructions. Those were your votes and not mine. I entered my protest against them at the time—before and after tlicy

war

an(*

mocrac.V

side while crossing the Isthmus or the! P'cs. contained in the organic laws cstabplains. It was also believed after their lishing the Territories of Kansas and Nearrival in the country, when they had be- braska as embodyding the only safe solucomc familiar with its topography^ climate,

t'ou

were recorded—and shall never hold my-! JUI 7 speech at Springfield, III., said "That self responsible for them. Utah must come in with polygamy.". RcA few weeks afterwards, the Legisla-

iutions approving of the course of my col-

league and myself on the compromise mca-

surcs by a vote of three or four to one. In taking leave of this subject, I wish to state that I have determined never to make^ another speech upon the slavery question and I will now add thc hope that the necessity for it will never exist. am heartily tired of thc controversy, and I know tho country ia disgusted with it.

This speech is quoted to convict Mr. Douglas of inconsistency. Mr. Douglas is condemned for not making slavery spceches, and then called inconsistent if he nc-

fcrrca to

CRAWFORDSYILLE, MONTGOMERY. COUNTY, INDIANA, SEPTEMBER 8, 1860.

cessarily alludes to slavery as a part of necessary self-defense. vt? DOUGLAS,

DEMOCRACY AND WHIGS IN 1852.

II. Greeley, in the New York Tribune, July 28, 1860, says:

In 1852, both the Whig and Democratic parties, with some dissenting voices, ratified the measures of 1850 in their platforms, and agreed to. abide by them. No man was more ostentatious in his avowals of fidelity to "this final settlement" of the slavery controversy than Mr. Douglas.

DOUGLAS AND DEHOCRACT IN

1854.

The Kansas-Nebraska act has the following provision: The true intent and meaning of said act (is) not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free, to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way subject only to the Constitution of the United States.

Observe, the people are left perfectly free without any limitation as to time, which then includes all time. 9. That Chase's amendment, in favor of popular sovereignty, giving power to the Territorial Legislature to prohibit slavery in the Territory, was voted against by Douglas.—Congressional Globe, 1854, p. 421.

The Globe says: The pending question is on the amend mcnt of Mr. Douglas—to strike out the words: "While the Missouri Compromise was superceded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative,"

And to insert— Which being inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as rccognizcd by the legislation of the year 1850, commonly called tho compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void—it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."

Mr. Jhasc—I desire to submit an amendment, insert immediately after the words which have just been inserted, the following: "Under which the people of the Territories, through their representatives may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein."

If Douglas had voted for this amendment, which provides that the people shall

Vut®

aid: The Whigs aud Frcesoilers intlie I regulate or establish slavery, he would Illinois Legislature combined to instruct nic to vote for a prohibition of slavery in New Mexico, which I did under a protest of denial of the principle, and a declaration that it was my constituents' vote and not mine.

slavery, but not vote to

have abandoned Popular Sovoreighty, and then the charge of inconsistency would have been just against him. inIUF

LAS' DEMOCRACY IN

1S56.

[See Douglas Harper Magazine article, and speech in the Seuatc, Slay 15 and 16, 1860, ami records there quoted

The platforms of 1856 and 1860 are as follows And that wc may more distinctly meet the issue on which a sectional party, subsisting exclusively on slavery agitation, now relies to test the fidelity of tho peopie. North and South, to the Constitution and the Union— 1. Iiesolced, That claiming fellowship with and desiring the co-opcration of all who regard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue—and repudiating all scctional parties and platforms concerning domestic slavery, which seek to embroil the States, and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the Territories and whose avowed purposes, if consummated, must end in

disunion—the American Dc-

recognize and adopt the princi-

t'ic

productions, resources, and had connected gr°at national idea of the people of their destiny with it, they were iully as j,1,is whole country can repose in its decompctcnt to judge for themselves what terinined conservatism of the Union—Nou kind of laws and institutions were best [interference by Congress with shivery in

That is fully answered in Douglas' record for 1860, herein given below. 11. Definition of Popular Sovereignty,

by Douglas'report March 12. 1856, Cong.

archives of Illinois.

ture assembled, and one of their first acts Godfrey ought to know that lawyers' was to repeal the resolution of instructions speeches to ^rand jurors arc not made matto which I have referred, and to pass reso-1

of rcc

in the archivc

ment inclines my mind to the belief that, in its legal effect, it is precisely the same with the original act, and almost in the words of that act. Hence, I should have no heaitancy in voting for it, except that it is putting this bill, matter that does not belong to it. I know very well what the object is. It is to figure on the stump this summer, to make the people believe that it is something different from what wc knew it to be here.

He tried the other day, as those associated with him on the stump used to do two years ago and last year, to ascertain what was my opinion on this point in the Ncbras ka bill.

I told them it was a judicial question— This would not suit them. Why? Their object was to get me to express a judgment, so that they could charge me with having urged a different view at home, though I had expressed the same opinion here pending that question, and though I had previously many times avowed the same thing. My answer then was and now is, that if the Constitution carrics slavery there let it go, and no power on earth can take it away but if the Constitution does not carry it there, no power but the people can carry it there. Whatever may be the true decision of that Constitutional point, would not have affected my vote for or against the Nebraska bill. I should have supported it just as readily if I thought the decision would be one way as the other.— If my colleague will examine my speeches, he will find that I stated I would not discuss this legal question, for by the bill we referred it to the courts.

Mr. Trumbull—I know very well that this Kansas-Nebraska Bill is discussed very differently in different sections of the country. It has a Northern and Southern look.

Mr. Douglas—All power which it is competent or possible for Congress to confer on the Territorial Legislature is conferred by that act. I say then, this act docs give it to the Territorial Legislature unless the Constitution of the United States prohibits it.

Now, then, what docs Douglas say is a judicial question? Does he say Popular Sovereignty, or the power of a Legislature to exclude slavery is a judicial question? Not a word of it. But whether the Constitution docs or docs not carry slavery into a Territory? And whether by virtue of such Comtitutioiuil carrying of slavery intoa Territory the Constitution thereby prohibits the Territory from excluding it therefrom? Constitutional establishment of slavery, aud thence ^restriction of sovereignty in the people over it, is a judicial question for all who claim its existence.

Do tho Kepublieans? If.so, under what clause of the Constitution, or decision of the Court? Quote the documents verbatim, gentleman.

The Popular Soverignty doctrinc is, that all power is inherit in the people the federal government having only the powers expressly given them. But if the Constitution carries slavery into the Territories, aud protects it there, does it not destroy the power of Congressional prohibition just as truly as it docs the power of Territorial prohibition by the people? If one is made

a humbug, the other is equally so, by the .c

„„,Tfi .. n,,

DOUCLAS IN

"slavery question" upon which

State and Territory, or in the District of Columbia. 10. Trumbull's amendment to Toombs' bill contained alternate clauses, that is giving the people not only power to prohibit slavery but to establish it also, which Chase's amendment did not contain, and Douglas voted against it for that reason.

of a

and t!,erc 13 n0 means of

1860

1,0

Globe 'i i) 56 I "tatc "1C occasion for the operation of Mr. Douglas—The minority report ad-1thc «™ndmcnt would cease! And the vocates foreign interference wc advocate

amcn m,:n

self-government and non-interference. actnced.ng no construe ion, and the

-T- T» I

This is the only definition of Popular conatructing

12. Douglas votes against referring the Kansas Constitution to the people. Douglas' acts on Lcconiptonism are sufficiently known to thc people, and need no comment. 13. Douglas, June 12, 1857, in a grand

±,

tesunS

hls

tru^

fulness by the record. 14. Godfrey says, [sec Cong. Globe ap-

Mr. Douglas—The reading of the amend-

j: 7 .• -nr x. |falsifier of what the Savior does not cxsame judicial question. Wc den there is

anything in the question. The Secessionists ,. love them in subordination nave wholly abandoned now the judicial

question, by ingrafting in their platform a new plank upon this precise point. If it is a political question at all, it is one in fact, and for everybody. If it is a political question for Republicans and Scccssonists, I know no reason why it is not equally so for Conservative Democracy. Nor will honest men pretend to know any.

BETWEEN CHARLESTON

AND BALTIMORE CONVENTIONS.

In Mr. Douglas' last great speech in the Senate, May 15 and 16, 1860, made after the secession at Charleston, and before the Baltimore convention, when all was in jeopardy, as much at least as at any time, lie referred to an amendment made by Hon. Lyman Trumbull to the Toombs' bill of 1856, for the admission of a State, in the following language:

It was not offered as an amendment to a territorial bill (where alone it could have any future force.) but to a State bill and as an amcudment to a State bill was nugatory, since by the taking effect of the State bill, ill the Territory becoming an independent

an independent

.,vas J'uhcif construction of

Constitution has referred thc power of

acts to thc

Sovereignty in Cong. Globe March 12, [The amendment of Trumbull was as fol-' 1850 bv Mr. Donglas, we can find.

Supreme Court,- :,i,

lows: After reciting the above Kansas!a

and Nebraska act as copied herein before,! down? it is added: "Was intended to and docs

Mr. Cass said: Now in respect to my- 'luotc

self,I suppose the Senate knows clear!v AI

penuix, 97, July 5, 1856] Douglas said my views. I believe tlie original act garc^~ States shall be vested in Wiethe power of a Legislature to exclude slave- the Territorial Legislature of Katisas fud Supreme Court, and in 3ueh inferior ourts ry was a judicial question. Aud if thc Constitution carries slavery into a Territory, no power can then exclude it. [Cong. Globe, pt. 1. p. IS. 3Ir. Douglas', Cass', and other speeches on the Trumbull amendment, are quoted in Douglas' record, in 1860, below:

that it is putting on this bill a matter that does not belong to it. Mr. Bigler said: I agree too with the Sanatorfrom Michigan (Mr. Cass) and the Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas,) that this is substantially the law as it now exists.

Mr. Toucey said: Now I object to this amendment as superfluous, nugatory, worse than that, as giving grounds for misrepresentation. It leaves the subject precisely where it is left in the Kansas Nebraska bill.

Mr. Bayard said: I have no objection to the amendment it is nothing more or less than an attempt to give a judicial exposition by the Congress of the United States to the Constitution, and I hold they have no right to usurp judicial power.

For the above reasons the amendment was voted down. Between the Charlestown and Baltimore Conventions, the Kansas and Nebraska Act, the Cincinati Platform, Popular Sovcreighty, and Douglas are virulently attacked in the Senate and Mr. Douglas has another opportunity 'to admit, deny, or qualify the doctrinc of Popular Sovereignty. What docs lie do? He rises in the Senate, before the North and South and the whole nation, and to save his voice invites Senator Pugh fo read us a part of his (Douglas') spocch, and as the true exposition of the KansasNebraska act—of the Cincinnati platform, and Popular Sovereignty, the foregoing act itself, Trumbull's amendment thereto, and the above quotations of speeches by Democratic Senators. 15. Dec. 9, Douglas said ho did not care whether slaver was voted up or voted down.

Again the Tribune, says:—"lie (Douglas) cares not whether slavery docs or does not go into a Territory, nor whether it be voted up or voted down. Wc do care and we want a President who cares also."

Now dou't you know that although Mr. Douglas used those words, yet in their just connection with the subject of the speech, and as by him used they expressed no such sentiment or thought as you have attributed to them. Do you not know that Douglas is speaking of the higher care for the principle of self-govern-ment? And that the whole of the meaning of those words in the connection in which they were used, was that we must care more for the higher, more centra! divine principle, popular sovereignty, than the secondary, subordinate one of hwr\

personal freedom, will be iti'/ii'ii/iiii//,/ rnist:il: ilily, to Popular Sovereignty. collectively exercised. (We confess that it is criminal for frecrhus for example the Saviour says. men not to be so committed.) "If any man comes to me, and hate iut Srroiirf. That wo are guiltv of hecintr-' his father and mother, and wife and child-: public agitators and trimmers for refusing ren and sisters, yea, and his own lilu also, to be bribed, intimidated or despotically lie cannot be my disciple."—Luke, 14, 26. dictated into sectionalism, Northern tit

Now don't you know that although the! Southern, to overturn tho esta

Saviour says that no man can be his disci-! Jf'10 government. -,i.„ ~t i- I Third. Tl.'iit wo arc guilty of rcaflirmplc, without hating his own father, mother, ur .• .1 ., .... mg and republishing an article of tho wite, children, brethren, sisters and his [Constitution. own life, yet he expresses no such senti-j The second and third counts wc demur ment or thought. That the Bcoffer who

would so represent him, would be a cruel

I press by this language, viz: That you must

and candor as belonging of right to Ileiiub- ,. ,. stifution, the President organ lican editors and speakers, ought you not ,,

to retract that cruel misrepresent !tion of Douglas' language? Ought not every stump speaker who has so wrungfullj used such falsification, to "go and sin no more?'' Ought not all honest men to retract such a glaring misrepresentation of thc truth and fact? Do you not know that Douglas by such language has only said that he cares whether slavery is voted up or voted down. riatiotud care, viz: That it is

mora^

actl

*'iat

Votes

confer upon or leave thc people of thc Which they put into the rccord Thev sav, .. Territory of Kimms full power at any time "The last resolution of the Baltimore Canollton, in IHli, he used the follow

aJdcJ

recognize or regulate it therein."j Louisiana, as they never fail to affirm,) Here was an opportunity for Douglas

over^ur,ls

and the Democracy, during tho pendency ^oes J'}' referring any Jerritorial of Trumbull's amendment to the Toombs' judicial question arising under the Conbill in 1856, to admjt-, deny or qualify thc 'l the Lnited states to the Sudoctrine of Popular Sovereignty. Here' Prcinc Court. But to whom doe- the are their speeches on Trumbull's amend-i Constitution itseli refcre that specific ment in the Senate, 1856: jquestion by its express provisions? Lot u-i

«.*«

the whole rccord." And how

thp

-:'J Con.-ulutional prov

T. III.

poicer to exclude or allow slavery. *, as the Congress may from time to tun This being mv view I shall vote

against

amendment that in its le, same with the original act, ami almost in the vsords of that act. Hcncc I should

have no hesitancy in voting fur it-, cxccpt

See. 1. The Jndicial power of

dain and establish.

the amendment. See. 2. The Judicial Power shall extend Mr. Douglas said: The reading of thc I to

all

cascs iu und

-•las said: The reading of thc an cases iu ww unu j^u.-uuy, arising 'inclines my mind to the belief under this Constitution, the Laws of the legal affect, it is prcciscly thc United States, and thc Territories made, \hf. rrrirn.nal net. and almost in

South asked, and the North consented (as if matter fo restore confidence in theso scctional times) to publicly admit that iho Constitution is still in force, byrcileclaring and~rcpublishing it in the Democratic Platform. The naked question is: .Has ft just provision cf~thc Constitution~{tp6fIed that Platform', in the opinioti of Sectionalists, by its embodiment therein? What harm in referring a judicial question where the Constitution refers it? Shall wo refuse to abide by the Constitution, or the judicial decisions of constitutional authority iu tho Supreme Court.

If common honesty and common sense, in view of the foregoing premises, should still fail of a just decision of the question wc have yet one more resource for tho Kcpublican reader. We refer him to tho authority of llenry Clay on referring this precise question to the Supreme Court of the United States. May 21, 1850, pending the consideration of the Compromiso bill in the Senate, Mr. Clay said:

The question whether the opinions cx Impressed by me and others, or the opposite ones, be right, can be decided by the Su* prcnie Court of the United States, upon a proper case brought before that tribunal. Wc go as far as we can to settle all theso questions. We establish governments there, from which courts appeals mny bo taken, according to tho express provisions of the bill, to the Supreme Court of thd United States. A question as to whether ",r

no.*

*'lc Mcx'cnn law prevails in theso Territories, or whether the Constitution Iadmits slaves to be taken there, can only -I be decided by that tribunal.

Now, did the republication in the Com« promise bill of 1850, of the Constitutional clause referring judicial questions under hurt in the Constitution to the Supremo Court, way that compromise bill? If not, can it hurt the Kansas act, or the platform? Suppose there is an irrcpresiblc, family quarrel, by division into two scctional parties, would a little conciliatory action aud magnanimity on the part of one division towarJ the other, for the purpose of pacifica--tion, when such action consisted only in republishing the Constitution, be crimnal ur piais worthy?

:i}4

to, aud in a

secondary degree to, the Higher Object of Love? That He teaches you must love

them unselfishly and truely, instead of not

Our enemies have hunted up oiir worst faults, and most vulnerable points, and indict. us for three offences, under threO

viction that he has as invulnerable a record as any living statesman. It. L. FA UN'S WORTH,

South Bend, Aug. 12, 1800.

Mr.

it up or votes it

WHAT IS THE III:rurn.ICAN ANSWER

guagc. it roii

Equity, arisin

which ihall be made, under their au-

thority. Here then is the ease at Baltimore

counts and charges in their indictment, towit: Firs/.. arc guilty of the crime of not being fully and absolutely committed, un-

01*

ished j'oli'

not coiitainiitg criino at all. Upon-

the

fril

first count we plead

NOT GUILTY

and

put ourselves upon the country. Now, we will continue our pledge made to Godfrey, to Republicans, and add ad-i ditional conditions, "that if any body will: prove Douglas is tint honest., not. atptdj.'cj

nr /IO

caring for them at all? statesman, wc will not vote for him." Our examination has led us to the con-

So Douglas says by his language wc must care about the manner in which freemen shall exercise their freedom itself.— Why? Because without freedom there can be no moral volition or act, and without moral volition and act there can be no development of moral character. So there can be no experience without freedom, for there can be no just retribution to evil, without freedom in the choice of good ami evil and unless evil punishes itself inherently, we can not experience its witherin

faithful, by his vholc record as

Join- iIK* ICutituN of lit**

The opposition to Douglas is becoming' desperate. It has lately set itself to work to attribute speeches to him which aro either forgeries made out of the whole

,, cloth, or garbled extracts amounting to the cursc, and learn wisdom by our experience.' ,, ,, .. same thing. Here is one which, we tieNow, 31 r. Oreelev, if you consider honesty ..

Heve, originated in the Washington Lou-1

In h:-speech in .Memphis, last year,

I think the South entitled to the next nomination, and should like to see Mr. Breckinridge obtain it. He is popular with the party I believe everywhere and deservedly so. lie is an able man, and will make a trood President, uud with

pride name him as my friend.". We have the Memphis speech before us, and not une word of the above is in it.— The l!--publican press still keep the following in circulation: "But Douglas, ifficem? strong or even stronger elain: port of Mr. ''lay's friends.

cquailj

to tl mi In a specc"

to sav 1 a of the Cuited States, and now dcnyinee him as a traitor—an old blackhearted traiior—the first Ameriesn states--•nan who ever attempted to sell his eouuiv for jJiiii.-li •ild.' )!,-• 1 \v!:

in thc Con-

.- that no day or place is mentionthe above .-peech was delivered.

It was ar Carrolltvn in 1*11. Th re fire many 'arruihons in the I nioii. The 'eh rgi- i- made vaguely, so as to render is jdiibeiilt to directly disprove if. If tho !day or week or month were stated, it could be .-liov.'n that Judge Douglas was in some other place at that time. .Joudge Doug-, ias' friends have denied it as a forgery made out of the whole cloth, and tho licpublican press, from their failure to give any particulars ubou' it have virtually fiio tirm- it