Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

persecuted gentleman. During the summer of 1840 Mr. Douglas's services were in almost daily requisition. The hard cider and log-cabin campaign was prosecuted with the most violent energy. Harrison was a Western man; Democrats in all parts of the Union were abandoning the party, and it was confidently proclaimed, and nowhere than in Illinois more strongly believed, that "Van was a used up man." Yet the gallant Democracy of Illinois remained true to their flag, true to their principles. The contest was a severe one. Illinois had many able and accomplished Whigs-men powerful in debate, and powerful with the people because of their personal character and professional abilities. The Democratic candidates for electors had as much as men could do to follow up and meet their opposing candidates, and well and ably did they perform their duty. But to Douglas was in a great measure confided the task of encountering several able and distinguished Whigs, who, though not on the electoral ticket, were indefatigable in their exertions on the stump. For seven months Mr. Douglas devoted his time to the attempt to prevent Illinois falling into the hands of the Opposition. He traversed all the doubtful counties, strengthening the desponding, and giving new hope to the fearful. The result is known. At the August election Democratic majorities in both branches of the Legislature were elected, and the popular vote, though close, was Democratic. From August to November the battle was waged with renewed vigor. The August elections pointed out the localities in which the respective parties were weak, and to these points Douglas was dispatched, and not until the day of election in November did he rest from his labors. The state was saved to the Democratic party. In the general defeat throughout the Union, Illinois was one of the seven states that chose Democratic electors, and, save New Hampshire, stood alone in the Northern States in maintaining a Democratic supremacy. It is no disparagement to the hundreds of noble spirits who, in behalf of the Democratic party, fought the glorious fight of 1840 on the soil of Illinois, to say that to Mr. Douglas was due much of the honor and credit of the result. His strong constitution and powers of physical endurance rendered him able to perform labors which other men, no matter what might be their mental gifts, would have been unable to withstand. From one end of the state to the other,

the "Little Giant" was recognized and applauded as the most conspicuous of the many heroes of that contest. His reputation as an orator, and as the forcible exponent of political principles was, by his deeds in this memorable campaign, raised to the highest point in the opinion of his party. He had already outstripped men who were veterans when he entered the state, and seven years from the day he—a sickly, feeble stranger-boy -first trod the prairies of Illinois, his name was as familiarly known, and his great abilities as fully admitted, as were the name and abilities of any other man in the state.

In the State of Illinois there had been for many years a custom of holding, during the sessions of the Legislature, a "third house," in which the lobby, composed of all persons attending at the seat of government, were admitted as members. Those who have witnessed the scenes at the sessions of the "lobby" of late years will not discover in the broad jokes and general hilarity that importance and great benefit which in olden times resulted from "Lord Coke's" assembly. The best minds and the best hearts were not always to be found in the legislative halls. The best lawyers in the state were generally in attendance on the Supreme Court during the meeting of the Legislature, and these men were often found in the meetings of the lobby. Here were discussed all the great measures pending before the Legislature, and it was often at these meetings that members of the Legislature heard arguments which, for ability and research, were never equaled within the Senate or the House. Douglas was an active member of this house. In the discussions of the many questions there presented, he was one of the ablest and one of the most conspicuous. Here was discussed the bank question, the internal improvements, the reorganization of the judiciary, the subject of alien suffrage, and, by no means the least important, the great question of repudiation.

The Legislature met on the 7th of December, 1840, both branches being Democratic. A majority of the Senate now being in favor of sustaining the governor in the removal of the secretary of state, Mr. Field abandoned the struggle and resigned the office. The governor, on the 27th of January, 1841, appointed Mr. Douglas secretary of state.

This session was destined to be one of great importance to the state, to the Democratic party, and to Mr. Douglas personally.

The Constitution of the State of Illinois, adopted in 1819, contained a provision authorizing every free white male "inhabitant" above the age of twenty-one years to vote at all elections. Under this provision, from the earliest settlement of the state, all persons who had become actual inhabitants of the state, whether naturalized or not, were permitted to vote. The election for President in 1836 had shown that Mr.Van Buren's majority barely exceeded three thousand; and it was supposed that if the "alien vote," as it was called, could be thrown out at future elections, the state would fall into the hands of the Opposition. From that time forth the rejection of the alien vote became a part of the policy of the Opposition. It was important that the question whether these men were legal voters or not should be decided by some judicial authority. The Opposition, therefore, selected the Jo Daviess circuit in which to strike down a large body of the Democratic voters. At the congressional election in 1838, one of these "inhabitants” of the State of Illinois, being unnaturalized, voted for Mr. Douglas. His vote had been received by the judges of election with a full knowledge on their part that he had never been naturalized. The Opposition, through a Mr. Houghton, instituted a qui tam prosecution against Mr. Spraggins, one of the judges. The case was tried; and the Circuit Court (Judge Stone) before whom the case was tried denied the authority of the state to confer the privilege of voting upon an unnaturalized alien, and rendered judgment against the defendant. This decision, in its practical effect, cut off at least one half the Democratic vote in the great northern district of the state. It was fatal to the Democratic party, which, bereft of that vote, would be in a minority in the popular vote of the state, and would be in a minority in a large number of senatorial and representative districts then represented by Democrats. If allowed to stand as law, that decision would have the effect of delivering the state and all the branches of the government to the Whig party. Mr. Douglas saw the importance of the decision not only to the thousands who were disfranchised by it, but also the importance in a political or party view. Though a stranger to the party convicted as well as to the voter, as soon as he heard of the decision he voluntarily interfered, and had the cause taken to the Supreme Court for review. At this time he stood almost alone at the bar in the opinion he expressed, that the

regulation of the matter of suffrage, within their respective limits, was one of those rights which the states had never surrendered to the federal government; that each state had, within its own limits, the full and exclusive right and authority to admit to the privilege of voting any and every class of persons she might think proper. The right to vote was not necessarily or exclusively pertaining to citizenship. Five sixths of the free white citizens of the United States were denied by law the privilege of voting. The Constitution of the United States expressly conceded, in the second section of the first article, to the states the exclusive control of the privilege of voting. At that time, as has been stated, Mr. Douglas almost stood alone at the bar in maintaining this view of the case. Men were led off from the true view of the case by the very plausible theory that, if aliens were allowed to vote, the election of a President might possibly be decided by their vote; and that the Constitution, in providing for a naturalization law, intended that aliens who desired to participate in the political privileges of the country should first become citizens. Those who took this view of the case forgot that, however strong their argument might be against the policy of a state admitting aliens to the privilege of voting, yet that was not the question at issue. The point depending was not whether the state ought to admit aliens to vote, but whether the state, having already conferred the privilege, had the power and authority to do so or not. The case was the first involving the point ever tried in the United States. Notwithstanding that it was generally understood that a majority of the Supreme Court were against him, Mr. Douglas fearlessly undertook the case, which has since become so well known. Its title was, Thomas Spraggins, appellant, vs. Horace H. Houghton, appellee. The argument was long and elaborate, and took place at the winter term of 1839-40. Upon its decision hung the future success or defeat of the Democratic party. The counsel were, Douglas and Murray M'Connell for the appellant; and Cyrus Walker, Schuyler Strong, and Justin Butterfield for the appellee.

The court took the case under advisement until the next term. In June, 1840, the court reassembled, and commenced its business by reading opinions and entering judgments upon those cases heard but not decided at the previous term. The state, at the time, was all excitement; cider barrels, log cabins,

and coon-skin emblems were in the height of popular estimation. The Democracy of Illinois were alarmed; they required every vote that could be procured to save the state. The “alien vote," numbering several thousands in the state, was indispensable. In a conversation with Judge Smith, Mr. Douglas learned that Judges Lockwood, Brown, and Wilson had agreed upon a decision in the case of Spraggins vs. Houghton," and that, at the opening of the term, they would announce it, and that the decision would sustain the judgment of the court below. This intelligence was important. The moment such a decision as that should be rendered by the Supreme Court, the Democracy would be shorn of their strength, and the state would be hopelessly Whig. It would be useless to carry on the campaign, for the loss of the "alien" vote would place the Democracy in a hopeless minority. How to prevent the calamity was a serious question. Every possible mode was considered, and rejected as vain. At last he read the record sent up by the clerk of the Circuit Court. It was defective; it contained errors; it lacked some things which had been carelessly omitted. When the court opened, and the judges had unrolled their opinions, preparatory to pronouncing judgment in the case of Spraggins vs. Houghton-a judgment so fatal, if rendered -Mr. Douglas rose and stated that the case was one of the very highest importance. It was important to the persons who were involved in it, but it was of still greater importance to thousands of others in their state. It was a case involving the political status of a very large portion of the people of Illinois. It was therefore necessary that the judgment of the court should be final, whichever way it might be. Upon an examination of the record in the case since the argument, he had discovered that it was fatally defective, so much so that no judgment could be rendered on it. He was unwilling to accept a judgment in a matter of such vast importance to his clients and to the public, when that judgment, in consequence of defects in the record, would be of no force or effect. He therefore moved that the cause be dismissed. This motion was resisted, and was set down for argument. It was subsequently argued, and, without any decision on the motion, the whole case was continued over until the next winter term.

Thus was prevented a decision which at this day would have but few defenders, and thus was saved, in a day of extremity,

« ZurückWeiter »