Indiana State Guard, Volume 1, Number 3, Indianapolis, Marion County, 24 July 1860 — Page 1

H id THE CONSTITUTION, THE UNION, AND THE EG UAL IT Y OF THE STATES!

VOL I

THE OLD LINE GUARD. IS PUBLISHED - T rL X " W.B 33 EI Xj y , AT I IV DIANAI'OLIS, I , l I A X A , KV EI-DEIt & MAKKIVESS. TEH 3Vt O , SI.OO, until after the PrcNidentiul Election. In advance, in all cases. Advertisements inserted at the usual rates. SPEECH OF HON I P. BENJAMIN, OF LOUISIANA. ' DELIVEIIED IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, may 22, 18G0. continued. Tlie Congress ha not only the right to govern it, but the right either to govern it by delegating persons to hold authority, or by exercising discretion, and committing to the people the right of self-government living to the people the right of self-government ; bythe action of Congress, not by inherent sovereignty a grant to bo made by Congress to the people of a Territory, of self-government through their Legislature ; and yet the honorable Senator from Illinois Mr. Douglas tells us that, although the Supreme Court of the United States decided in that case (a decision by which ho agreed to abide) that the Congress of the United States have the unquestioned power to rovern the Territories ; and although the Court decided that Congress could govern them in any way it pleased in its discretion ; and although, the court decided that one mode of governing them was for Congress to commit to the inhabitants there a power of self-government; when Congress has, committed that power, he says that the people who. got it from Congress have more right than Congress itself; and that the Territorial Legislature, which draws its legislative power from a grant by Congress, can rise higher than the powers possessed by the grantor ; or, in other words, that the stream can rise above its source. Mr. Pugh Does the Senator say that the court meant that Congress makes a grant of the power of self-governmentto the people of a Territory? Mr. Benjamin Clearly. Mr. Pugh Where does Congress get the power of self-government? The phrase is that Congresses power of self-government over a Territory. It is a contradiction in terms. Mr. Benjamin Who says that ? Here is the same idol evasion. Mr. Pugh If I should respond to the Senator in equal temper, I should call his an evasion. I desire to know where he finds, in the Dred Scott case, the proposition. Mr. Benjamin The court says that Congress may, without reference to the action of the people of a Tnrritorv. covern it as it pleases in its discretion. Then the court says that Congress may, instead of that, give to the people thojpower or sen-government. - Mr. Pugh "Commit." Mr. Benjamin Commit to the people the power of self-government What is there absurd in that? Mr. Pugh There is nothing absurd in that; but I was aboufto say to the Senator, if that phrase fits him, I hope he will give the explanation Mr. Benjamin The absurdity, if any, is that of the court, not mine. Mr. Pugh Undoubtedly in tie case of Louisiana, which theSenator from Georgia cited yesterday, that act was simply preliminary, to get possession of the country, aud until you have a sufficient community, it is all idle to talk about self-government : but I understand that paragraph to be that, whenever the period arrives that a community is there, and Congress recognizes the community, Congress has no power of pff'-rrovernment to irrant : it has no such power. If there is any such power, it comes from some other place, and I say it does not come from Congress. Congress did not have it. Mr. Benjamin What is meant by Congress committing the power of self-government to the people? Mr. Pugh Acknowledging it. Mr. Benjamin Commit means to acknowledge f Very well. Mr. Pugh In that sense. I ask the Senator how Congress can commit a power which Congress could not, by any possibility, have ; for it is an absurdity in terms to say that Congress has the power of self-government in the Territories. Mr. Benjamin Congress has the power of gov( rnment. Mr. Pugh Then leave the "self " out. Mr. Benjamin Exactly, when applied to Congress. Congress has the power of government over, the Territories ; but when Congress commits the power to the people to govern themselves, that is a power of self-government in them. It seems to me so plain that" language cannot make it plainer. I cannot pursue this discussion with the Senator from Ohio. But, sir, the Supreme Court of the United States, in relation to this power of Congress and of the Territorial Legislatures, has not stopped where I have just read. It has gone further, and said : " The power over persons and pro, erty of which we speak" that Is, the power of confiscating the slaves of the citizens of the slaveholding States, if they go into the Territories "are not onlv not granted to Congress, but are in ex press terms denied, and they are forbidden to exer-j cise them. And this prohibition ia not confined to the States, but the words are general, and extend to ! the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it yet; remaining under territorial government, as well as j that, covered by States. It is a total absence of power J everywhere within the dominions of the United, States, and places ttie citizens ot a territory, so iar as these rights are concerned, on the same footing with the citizens of the States, and cuards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the General j Government might attempt under the plea of implied j or incidental powers, and if Congress itself cannot dot tlrs; If it is beyond the powers conferred on the Fed-, eral Government, it will be admitted, we presume, j that it could not authorize a territorial government to ; exercise them. It could confer no power on anylo-j cal government established by its authority to violate I the provisions of the Constitution." j Congress cannot destroy the property of a citizen j in his slave in a Territory. Congress cannot commit j to the people of a Territory the power of government! the Senator savs "self-frovernment," is absurd then j let us say the power of government; but in so com' mittm? it. the court sav thev presume it will be ad mitted that Congress cannot authorize a territorial go vernment to exercise the powers which Congress itself is prohibited from exercising. Asain : " Aud if the Constitution recognizes the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no disother property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting; under the authority of the United States" j And surely the Territorial Legislatures, when or-i gauized, are acting under our authority j " no tribunal acting under the authority of the United ! States, whether it be leqUhitive, executive or judicial J has a right to draw such a distinction, or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the Government"

INDIANAPOLIS,

Now, Mr. President, in that connection, let mo thank the honorable Senator from Mississippi for bringing the Senator from Illinois to the point the other day. Wo have got him at last where we can understand him.... Again and again the distinguished Senator from Mississippi called upon the Senator from Illinois to define what he meant by squatter sovereignty. He was asked when and how it is that the people of a Territory acquired the right of self-government. I have here his answer. Well might the Senator from Mississippi say that the more this subject was examined and discussed, the further we got apart. What was the answer of the Senator from Illinois ? It was this. Shall I call it absurd ? No, sir ; senatorial courtesy will not permit it; but I state it in his own language almost. I will read his words presently. When the people of this country first go into the wilderness and find there no government whatever, and then exercise that inherent right of self-defence which drives men, under the laws that God has implanted in them, to associate together in self-defence, and organize some system of law for their own protection ; then, when it would seem to the common sense of universal mankind that no one could say they were wrong in doing that then it is that the Senator from Illinois says he repudiates and opposes their power. That is the squatter sovereignty that he objects to. But when the sovereign has come in ; when the trustee of all the Slates has taken possession of the common fund; when it has organized a government thatsuits it in the exercise of its discretion ; and when it has committed the administration of the affairs of the Territory, with certain limitations under the Constitution of the United States, to a Territorial Legislature then, when the sovereign is present, then the people become invested, by some magical process, with an inherent popular sovereignty, that rises superior to the author of' their being, That is the position of the Senator from Illinois. In answer to the Senator from Mississippi, he said : "Regarding squatter sovereignty as a nick-name invented by the Senator and those with whom he acts, which I have never recognized, I must leave him to define the meaning of his own term. I have denounced squatter sovereignty where you find it setting up a government in violation of law, as you do now at Pike's Peak. I denounced it this vear. Where you find an unauthorized legislature, in iolation of law, setting up a government without the sanction of Congress or the Constitution that is squatter sovereignty which I oppose. There is the case in Daeotah, where you have left a whole people without any lata or terrritoriul or ganization, with no mode of appeal from their squatter courts to the United Mates courts to correct their decisions. That is squatter sovereignty in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. There is a similar government set up over a part of the State of California, and a part of the Territory of Utah, called Nevada It has had a delegate here claiming that he represented it I have denounced that as unlawful. It' that is what the Senator referred to, I am against it. All I say is, that the people of a Territory, when they have been organized under the Constitution and laws, have legislative power over all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States." Now, the Supreme Court of the United States says that no tribunal, legislative, executive, or judicial, acting under the authority of the United States, can interfere with the right of a southern citizen to his property in the Territories. The honorable Senator from Illinois says they cannot do it until they are organized under the authority of the United States. Which is right ? He says the people of a Territory do not get the power until they are organized under the authority of the General Government. The Supreme Court of the United States says no earthly tribunal organized under the authority of the United States can exercise that power. Now, Mr. President I cannot go any further into the discussion of this case, because, in view of my ulterior purposes in this argument, it is unnecessary. No sooner had that decision been made than it was attacked all over the land. It was attacked by the Republican party. The honorable Senator from New Hampshire Mr. Hale was not satisfied with attacking the principles of the decision. The Chief Justice, in order to come at the poiut to which he was directing his attention, declared that ho could only reach the point bv taking into consideration the history of the African race on tins continent, ana looKing oacK, in a historical point of view, to the date of the adoption of the Constitution ; and he proceeded to give that history. He stated that at that date certain principles were prevalent in the country, and amongst them, that these unfortunate people were considered by many as having no rights which a white man was bound to respect. The honorable Senator from New Hampshire repeated here the other day the statement that this assertion of a historical fact was one of the points decided by the court, in defiance, I suppose, of one thousand corrections ot tne statement that nau been made all over the United States. Again: the honorable Senator from New York, Mr. Seward, who is not now in his seat, and whose claims upon the gratitude and confidence of his party were so ruthlessly set aside at Chicago, undertook to get rid of the decisionby denouncing the court; and Senators around mo will remember how, again and again, he stood up here in the Senate and insinuated, in t.hn f'aee of the eountrv. that there had been a bar gain between the Chief Justice and the President of -rr . l o , . IT. 1 . .1 1 " ' . tne united otaies. ne saw wuai uie uecisiou was; he did not attempt to evade or avoid it He tried to get rid of its moral power by blackening the character of its author. What says the honorable Senator from Illinois? He does not do that He now says that his bargain was that he would abide by the decision of the court when it came up from a local court in a Territory. He is not satisfied with the decision, although given by the tribunal to which we all agreed to refer it He says he did not agree to refer it in the Dred Scott case ; he agreed to refer it when a case should arise in a territory. Here is his language : "Bear in mind that the report introducing the bill was, that these questions touching the right of property in slaves were referred to the local courts, to the territorial courts, with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. When that case shall arise, and the court shall pronounce its judgment, it will be binding on me, on you, sir, and on every good citizen." Mr. President, I am not satisfied with that promise ; and I am not satisfied with it because the honorable Senator from Illinois, upon several memorable occasions since the year 185f, has said out of the presence of the Senate that, if the decision was made, it would not bind the people of the Territory ; that the case could not be so decided as to bind the Territory; that nothing that the Supreme Court could do by decision could bind the Territory ; but, by the Kansas-Nebraska bill, he-had fixed the South so that the people of the Territory, in defiance of the decisions of the court, could exclude slavery from the Territory; Here, Mr. President, let me come back to an explanation of that fact which I spoke of before, and to which I asked the attention of the Senate and the country. Here stands the explanation of the sudden change that has been wrought in the relations of the Senator from Illinois with the rest ot the Democratic fiarty. It was when, iu the year 1858, the year folowing this decision, pressed by a canvass at home, eaer to return to the Senate, he joined in canvassing the State of Illinois with the gentleman who is now the candidate of the Black Republican party for the Presidency. Pressed in different portions of the State with this very argument, that he had agreed to leave the question to the court, that the court had decided it in favor of the South, and that, therefore, under the Kansas-Nebraska bill, slavery was fixed in all the Territories of the United States; finding himself going down in Illinois in that canvass, he backed out from his promise, and directly told the people of his State that, whether it had been decided or not, and no matter what the court might decide, the Kansas-Ne

INDIANA, TUESDAY,

braska bill had fixed the power in the people of the North to make everv Territory in the Union free. In that contest the two candidates for the Senate of the United States, in the State of Illinois, went before their people. Thev aoreed to discuss the issues ; they put questions to each other for answer ; and I must 1 1 1 T . 1. i A- 11 il.t T 1 1....... say here, tor l must De just 10 an, mui i uavo n ised in the examination that I made atrain within the last few davs of this discussion between Mr. Lin coln and Mr. Douglas, to find that on several points Mr. Lincoln is a far more conservative man, unless he has since changed his opinions, than I had supposed him to be! There was no dodging on his part Mr. Douglas started with his questions. Here they are, with Mr. Lincoln's answers : " Question 1. I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive slave law ? " Answer. I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive slave .- law. ' Question 2. I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more slave States into the Union, even if the people want hem ? "Answer. Idonot now, nor ever did, stand pledged against the admission of.ariy more slave States into the Union. 4 ' " Question 3. I want to know whether he stands ' pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make ? " Answer. I do not stand pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a constitution as the people of that Stale may see fit to make. " Question 4. I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia ? "Answer. I do not stand to-dav pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of" Columbia. " Question 5. I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade between the different States ? "Answer. I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade between the different States. " Question 6. T'desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United States, north as well as south of the Missouri Compromise line ? " Answer. I am impliedly, if not expressedly, pledged to a belief in the right and duty of Congress to prohibit slavery in all the United States Territories. " Question 7. I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any new territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein ? "Answer. I am not generally opposed to honest acquisitions of territory ; and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition, according as I might think such acquisiion would or would not aggravate the slavery question among ourselves." Debates of Lincoln and Douglas, p. 88. It is impossible, Mr. President, however we may differ in opinion with the man, not to admire the per fect candor and frankness with wluch these answers were oiven : no euuivocation no evasion. The Sen ator from Illinois had his questions put to him in his turn. All I propose to do now is to read his answer to the second question : " The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lin coln IS, Can Uie. people Ul a itmwr;, m any miui way, against the wishes of any citizen ot the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution ? I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that, in my opiiilon, the people ot a lerntory can, by tawtul means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution. Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over and over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over the State in 1854, in 1855, and in 185G, and lie has no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position on that question." . All that was true ; but see the aS ; the decision had not come yet ; now the decision has come ;. now what? ; "It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract question, whether a'avery may or may not go into a territory under the Constitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere unless it is supported by the local police regulations. Those police regulations can only be established by the local Legislature ; and if the people are opposed to slavery, they will elect representatives to that body who will, by unfriendly legislation, effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they arc for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may bo on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a slave Territory of a free Territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point" He told us, a few days ago, that he had agreed that that verv Question should be submitted to and decided by the court. He held out to us hero, when we altogether advocated and supported the Kansas-Nebraska ! v!:ii ,... u,ntt;c a ;n,lw.;:il mi,. stum to i the courts, and that when that question was decided, the Democratic party should be a unit on the question thus decided ; but when he goes home, and is pressed in a local contest, and he sees the glittering prize of a seat in this Chamber slipping from his. grasp he turns his back upon his promise ; he repudiates liis words ; he tells his people, as he says he has told them a hundred times before, that, even if the court decides against them, he has, in the Kansas-Nebraska act, obtained for the free States a perfect right to make a free Territory of every slave Territory in the Union, notwithstanding the decision of the court ; and yet the honorable Senator stands up here and arraigns his .. . .1 !.. ! . Democratic brethren ; accuses tnem oi oreacn oi iaiui ; talks them of turning him out of the party ; and triumphantly appeals to the records of 1840 to show t his consistency. Now, we tell him 1 . ' IT .11 1 ... that we will not I Once deceived 1 stand upon such promises any more. a wise man may be ; twice deceived, by the same person and the same means, he is a dupe and a fool. He tells us now arain. " leave it to the courts," so that he may again go home, and addressing his people, say to them : " Fellow-citizens of Illinois, I have got the

South for you. I have got them so that, no matter ( or grant any title ot nooiuiy. i what the decision is, you can have a free Territory, " It must be borne in mind that in each ot these , and keep their slaves out always." j cases where the power is not expressly delegated to . Well, sir, what occurred further in that controversy?! Congress, the prohibition is not imposed upon the His competitor was shocked at the profligacy of the Federal Government, but upon the States. Ihere ( Senator. His competitor said to him and here is the j was no necessity for any such prohibition upon Unargument "everybody knows that the Dred Scott I gress or the Federal Government, for the reason that decision has determined the principle that a citizen ofi the omission to delegate any such powers in the Con-: the South has a right to go into the Territory, and ! stitution was of itself a prohibition, and so dec ared there, under the Constitution, his property is protect-, in express terms by the tenth amendment, which deed, and yet you are telling the people here that their; dares that ' the powers not delegated to the United legislators, when thev swear to support the Constitu-j States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the vion. can violate that" constitutional provision." Mr. States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to

Lincoln held up his hands in horror at the proposi-1 hon. He was bold in the assertion ot his own principles ; but he told the Senator from Illinois in that discussion that what he was saying was a gross outrage on propriety, and was breaking the bargain he had made. Jtiut asram, sir, he told the senator nm jiunoi that he did not believe in the Dred Scott decision, ! because, said he. if the Dred Scott decbion be true, i and slavery extends in the Territories under the Co stitution of the United States, then it also exists in the States it exists in Pennsylvania as well as in Kansas. The contest is ended. On the popular vote the Senator from Illinois was beaten ; but according to the representative and senatorial districts of the State, he was re-elected. The popular rote upon the election nf mpmbpra nf tha Senate and Legislature was hundred and twenty-one thousand in his fivor,

JULY 24, i860;

one hundred and twenty-five thousand in favor of the Republican candidate, and five thousand votes in favor of what he called the Danites. All the State Republican officers were elected ; but there was a majority of the Legislature of Illinois elected in favor of the Senator from Illinois, and he came back here in triumph. ' : .'. " . " r 1 " . ' Last spring I was forced to leave my country from an attack of a disease in the eyes, which required attention abroad. Por six or eight months I was debarred from reading or writing. I came back just before the opening of this Congress ; and I found that during my absence the honorable Senator from Illinois had been engaged in a controversy in the public journals and magazines of the country in relation to the principles that governed the Territories of the United States, and that he had copied in those articles the very arguments that his Republican opponent in Illinois had used against him, and was then using against the Democratic party. Laughter. I have got them here. First, that it may not be said that I originated this charge, after these magazine articles were printed, and after the Senator's opponent, Mr. Lincoln, had taxed him with want of good faith under the Constitution for alleging the power of the local Legislature to adopt this unfriendly legislation, in a subsequent speech, delivered at Columbus, Ohio, in September, 1859, Mr. Lincoln said to the people : " Judge Douglas says, if the Constitution carries slavery into the Territories, beyond the power of the people of the Territories to control it as other property, then it follows logically that every one. who sweai-s to support the Constitution of the United States must give that support to that property which it needs. And if the Constitution carries slavery into the Territories beyond the power of the people to control it as other property, then it also carries it into the States, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Now, gentlemen, if it were not for my excessive modesty, I would say that I 'told that very thing to Judge Douglas quite a year ago. This argument is here iu print, and if it were not for my modesty, as I said, I might call your attention to it. If you will read it, you will find that I not only made that argument, but made it better than he has since." Laughter. Now, let us look at Judge Douglas' argument on this subject in Harper's Magazine. The Senator from Illinois, after thus deliberately violating the agreement that he made with his brother Democrats; after Hying from the result of the decision which he himself had provoked and proposed ; after declaring that, no matter how many decisions might be made, hecould always get clear of them, because he had so fixed it in the Nebraska bill that the people of the Territory could always, in spite of the decisions, make free Territories, then proceeded, in his canvass for the Presidency, to address himself to the people of the United States through a magazine; anu tne next trick lam not speaking of it in the sense of dishonor or dishonesty tne next iantasiic h ick oi uie oi-uaiui , wits to dress up a magazine article with the answers of his Republican opponent in Illinois brought forward and claimed as discoveries by himself, as I shall show: and he put forth to the astonished gaze of the American Republic his new theory, that the word " States," when employed in the Constitution of the United States, often means " Territories." Let us first look at this new constitutional discovery. In order that I may do the Senator no injustice, I will read what, I am sure, on its being read, if I had not the book in my hand, would be supposed to be a caricature of the opinions of a public man. In speaking of the clause about the surrender of fugitive slaves, he says : " It will be observed that the term ' State is used in this provision, as well as in various other parts of the Constitution, in the same sense in which it was used by Mr. Jefferson, in his plan for establishing governments for the new States in the territory ceded, and to be ceded, to the United States, and by Mr. Madison, in his proposition to confer on Congress power ' to institute temporary governments for the new States arising in the unappropriated lands of the United States,' to designate the political communities, Territories as wen as states, wiinni uie uuuuuiuu u. the United States. Here it is, and he goes on to prove it, as he says ; and the proof is so amusing that I will relieve this rather tedious discussion by reading it for the amusement of the Senate: " The word ' States ' is used in the same sense in the ordinance of the 13th of July, 1787, for the government of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, which was passed by the remnant of the Congress of the Confederation, sitting in New York, while its most mmnent members were at Philadelphia, as delegates to the Federal Convention, aiding in the formation of the Constitution of the United States. "In this sense the word 'States' is used in the clause providing for the rendition of fugitive slaves, applicable to all political communities under the authority of the United States, including the Territories as well as the several States of the Union. Under any other construction, the right of the owner to recover his slave would be restricted to the States of the Union, leaving the Territories a secure place of refuge for all fugitives. The same remark is applicable to the clause of the Constitction which provides that ' a nnrson eharced in anv State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another Stale, shall, on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the State having jurisdiction ot the crime.' Unless the term State, as used in these provisions of the Constitution, shall be construed to 11- 1". ..i. nmm..:ti. tinrloi. ! inciuue every uisiiiieb juiiLn:rti iumuiuunt. jurisdiction of the United States, and to apply to Ter- j ritories as well as to the States of the Union, the Ter- j ritories must become a sanctuary for all the fugitives j from service and justice, for all the felons and crimi- j nals who shall escape from the several States, and seek j refuge and immunity in the Territories. j " If any other illustration were necessary to show that the political communities which we now call Ter-1 ritories (but winch, during the wnoie penou oi uie Confederation and the formation of the Constitution, were always referred to as Mates or new states ) are recognized as ' States' m soine of the provisions ot the Constitution, they may De round in tnose clauses j which declare that 4 no State' shall enter into, any; ' treaty, alliance, or confederation ; grant, leuers oi , marque or reprisal; coin money ; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in ; payment of debts ; pass any bill of attainder, ex post j facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, ; the people. " Hence it would certainly be competent for the States and Territories to exercise these powers but for the prohibition contained in those provisions of the Constitution: and inasmuch as the prohibition only extends to the ' States,' the people of the ' Territories ' are still at liberty to exercise them, unless the l erritones are included wiinm ine icrin omn-j, iuim the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution of, the United States." t This is a constitutional argument elaborately pro-; pounded to what the honorable Senator from Georgia yesterday said was the nonsense of the country. Mr. ; President, it it rot observable, does not everybody see, that the Senator from Illinois wa driven into just; that nonsense when he assumed the power of the peo- j pie of a Territory to exercise what lie terms squatter ; . .... i i .11 or popular sovereignty? If they be, indeed, sove

NO. 3.

reigns, he is right; there is no prohibition on them in the Constitution of the United States, for the prohibitions are upon States alone, and not upon territorial governments. If, therefore, they be iiopular sovereigns, he does not get rid of his difficulty by saying that when the Constitution talks about States it means -rIWri tormH, hwaiiMA tlint. is not Mil but he brinfTS him self just to that reductio ad absurdum which, with his peculiar perspicacity, he saw straight before him : if the Territory is sovereign, as there is no restriction upon that sovereignty in the Constitution, because the Constitution restricts only the sovereignty of the States and the Federal Government, necessarily the people of a Territory have a right to raise armies, to wage war, to emit bills of credit, to exercise all those powers that the Constitution of the United States prohibits the States from exercising. In order to get rid of this direct additional absurdity into which lie was plunged, he saw no other remedy than to appeal to the nonsense of the public with a statement that the Constitution of the United States meant ' Territories' when it said ' States.' But, sir, I have said that the honorable Senator from Illinois had in this magazine taken the arguments used by his Republican opponent in the senatorial canvass in Illinois and put them before the people of the country as arguments against his Democratic associates who differed from him in opinion. I have read to you what Mr. Lincoln said on that subject in his speech in September, 1859. Here is what Mr. Lincoln said in the speech delivered by him in reply to Mr. Douglas, at Jonesboro', on the 15th of Sep! ember, 1858: To this Judge Douglas answered, that they, (the people of a Territory) can lawfully exclude slavery from a Territory prior to the formation of a constitution. He goes on to tell us how it can be done. As I understand him, he holds that it can be done by the Territorial Legislature refusing to make any enactments for the protection of slavery in the Territory, and especially by adopting unfriendly legislation to it. For the sake of clearness I will state it again ; that they can exclude slavery from the Territory, first, by withholding what he assumes to be indispensable assistance to it in the way of legislation ; and, secondly, by unfriendly legislation. If I rightly understand him, I wish to ask your attention for a while to his position. " In the first place, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that any congressional prohibition of slavery in the Territories is unconstitutional that they have reached this proposition as a conclusion from their former proposition, that the Constitution of the United States expressly recognizes property in slaves, and from that other constitutional provision, that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law." Pretty straightforward propositions, one wculd suppose. "Hence they reach the conclusion thai, as the Constitution of the United States expressly recognizes property in slaves, and prohibits any person from being deprived of property without due process of law, to pass ah act of Congress by which a man who owned a slave on one side of a line would be deprived of him if lie took him on the other side, is depriving him of that property without due process of law. That I understand to be the decision of the Supreme Court. I understand, also, that Judge Douglas adheres most firmly to that decision ; and the difficulty is, how is it possible for any power to exclude slavery from the Territory unless in violation of that decision? That is the difficulty. "In the Senate of the United States, in 185G, Judge Trumbull, in a speech, substantially, if not directly, put the same interrogatory to Judge Douglas, as to whether the people of a Territory had the lawful power to exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution. Judge Douglas then answered at considerable length, and his answer will bo found in the Congressional Globe under date of June 9, 1856." ; I have not that answer, but I have his answer of the 2d of July, 1856, which the Senator from Georgia read yesterday, in which he says : "My answer then was, and now is" Here is his senatorial answer in Congress here : "My answer then was, and now is, that if the Constitution carries 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.1' . Not just wljat he said in Illinois. Mr. Lincoln proceeds: , " The Judge said that whether the people could exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution or not was a question to be decided by the Supreme Court. He put that proposition, as will be seen by the Congressional Globe, in a variety of forms, all running to the same thing in substance that it was a question lor the Supremo Court I maintain that when he says, after the Supreme Court have decided the question, that the people may yet exclude slavery by any means whatever, he does virtually say that it is not a question for the Supreme Court. He shifts his ground. I appeal to you whether he did not say it was a question for the Supreme Court. Has not the Supreme Court decided that question? When he now says the people may exclude slavery, does he not make it a question for the people ? Does he not virtually shift his ground, and say it is not a question ibr the court, but for the peoplo I This is a very simple proposition a very plain and naked one." . " Again ; I will ask you, my friends, if you were elected members of the Legislature what would be the first thing you would have to do before entering upon your duties? Swear to support the Constitution of the United States. Suppose vou believe, as Judge Douglas does, that the Constitution of the United States guaranties to your neighbor the right to hold slaves in that Territory that they are his property how can you clear your oaths unless you give him such legislation as is necessary to enable him to enjoy that property ? Wrhat do you understand by supporting the Constitution of a State or of the United States Is it not to give such constitutional helps to the rights established by that Constitution as may be practically needed ? Can you, if you swear to support the Constitution, and believe that the Constitution establishes a right, clear your oath without giving it support ? Do you suprt the Constitution if, knowing or believing there is a right established under it which needs specific legislation, you withhold that legislation ? Do you not violate and disregard your oalh ? I can conceive of nothing plainer in the world. There can be nothing in the words ' support the Constitution ' if von may run counter to it by refusing support to any right established under the Constitution. And what I say here will hold with still more force against the Judge's . doctrine of ' unfriendly legislation.' How could you, having sworn to support the Constitution, and believing it guarantied the right to hold slaves in the Territories, assist in legislation intended to defeat that right J That would be violating your own view of the Constitution. Not only so, but if you were to do so, how long would it take the courts to hold your votes unconstitutional and void ? Not a moment. " Lastly, I would ask, is not Congress itself under obligation to give legislative support to any right that is established in the United States Constitution ? I repeat the question, is not Congress itself bound to give legislative support to any right that is established in the United States Constitution? A member of Congress swears to supixrt the Constitution of the United States; and if he sees a right established by that Constitution which needs specific legislative protection, can he clear his oath without giving that protection ? Let me ak you why many of us who are opposed to slavery upon principle, give our acquiescence to a fugitive slave law ? Why do we hold ourselves under obligations to pass such a law, and abide it when it is passed ? Because the Constitution makes provision that the owners of slaves shall have the " right to reclaim them. It gives the right to reclaim slaves and that is, as Judge Douglas says, a barren right, unless there is legislation that will enforce it. CONCLUDED IX NEXT NUMBM.