PART II.-PRO-SLAVERY.

COURT.

On this occasion, (to wit, on the 2d of July, 1856,) Mr. Douglas used the following language in discussing the amendment :

The introduction of the third Nebraska bill, HE SAYS IT IS A QUESTION FOR THE SUPREME repealing the Missouri Compromise, constitutes the turning point in Mr. Douglas' political highway. From this sharp corner, his course is wholly and utterly pro-slavery, down to the introduction of the Lecomp'on bill in the Senate, where he takes a position of indifference, best expressed in his phrase, "Don't care whether slavery is voted down or voted up." The indifferent mood is preserved a little more than two years, when, as will be seen by the record, he becomes more wrathfully pro-slavery than ever before.

HE VOTES DOWN "C POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY."

colleague is trying to raise here, has been well known "My opinion in regard to the question which my to the Senate for years. It has been repeated over and over again. 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 were my opinions on this point in the Nebraska bill. I TOLD THEM IT WAS A JUDICIAL QUESTION. 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 Whatever may be the true decision of that con

Ne-stitutional point, it would not have affected my vote for or against the Nebraska bill. I should have supported it as readily if I thought the decision would be one way as the other. If my colleague will examine my find that I stated I would not discuss the LEGAL speeches, he will find that declaration. He will also QUESTION, for that by the bill we referred it to the Courts."-Appendix to Cong. Globe, page 797.

The true intent and meaning of the braska bill was declared to be "not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people perfectly free to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United Stat s." This was the "stump speech in the belly of the bill," as Mr. Benton justly characterized it. On the 15th of February, 1854, Senator Chase offered an amendment to the bill, in order to allow the people to exclud slavery while in a Territorial condition, if they wanted to. The amendment was as follows:

"Mr. CHASE.-I desire to submit an amendment

to insert immediately after the words, subject to the
Constitution of the United States,' the following:
"Under which the people of the Territory, through
their appropriate representatives, may, if they see
fit, PROHIBIT THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY
THEREIN.'"-Cong. Globe, 1854, part 1, page 421.

After considerable discusion a vote was taken, on the 2d of March fllowing, and the amendment was rejected by-yeas, 10; nays, 30—DOUGLAS voting in the negative. Thus it appeared that the people were not left fectly free to exclude slavery, according to Mr. Douglas' understanding of his own bill.

HE DOES IT AGAIN.

And again on the same day, in reply to Mr. Trumbull, he said:

"I say I am willing to leave it to the Supreme Court of the United States, because the Constitution intrusted it there."-Appendix to Cong. Globe, 1855-6, page

797.

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED.

This is a proper place to give the decision of the Supreme Court on the question of slavery in the Territories, and the right of Territorial Legislatures to exclude it. It will be found on pages 450 and 451, vol. 19, Howard's Reports, (Dred Scott vs. John F. A. Sanford,) where, after deciding that Congress had no power to prohib t slavery in a Territory, the Court proceeded as follows:

"The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in per-cise them. express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exerAnd this prohibition is 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 portlons of it remaining under Territorial Government, as well as that covered by States. It is a total absence of power everywhere within the dominion of the United States, and places the citizens of a Territory, so far as these rights are concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the States, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the General Government might attempt, under the ple of implied or incidental powers. And if Congress itself cannot do this-if it is beyond the powers conferred on the Federal Government-it will be admitted, we presume, that it could not authorize a Territorial Government to exercise them. It could confer no power on any local government established by its authority, to violate the provisions of the Con-titution.

On the 2d of July, 1856, Senator Trumbull offered the following amendinent to the bill for the admission of Kansas, commonly known as the "Toombs Bill":

"And be it further enacted, That the provision of the 'Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas,' which declares it to be the true intent and meaning' of said act not to degislate 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 Constituti n of the United States,' was intended to and does confer upon or leave to the people of Kansas full power, at any time, through its Territorial Legislature, to exclude slavery from said Territory, or to recognize and regulate it therein."

The vote stood-yeas 11, nays 34. DOUG LAS voting in the negative. The amendment may be found on pige 796, and the vote on page 799 of the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1855-56.

"It seems, however, to be supposed that there is a difference between property in a slave and other property, and that different rules may be applied to it in expounding the Constitution of the United States. And the laws and usages of nations, and the writings of eminent jurists upon the relation of master and slave, and their mutual rights and duties, and the powers dwelt upon in the argument. which governments may exercise over it, have been

"But in considering the question before us, it must be borne in mind that there is no law of nations stand

ing between the people of the United States and their government, and interfering with their relation to each

other. The powers of the government, and the rights of the ci izens under it, are positive and practical regulations pl.inly written down. The people of the United States have delegated to it certain enumerated powers, and forbidden it to exercise others. It has no power over the person or property of a citizen but what the citizens of the United States ave granted. And no laws or usages of other nations, or reasoning of statesmen or jurists upon the relation of master and slave, can enlarge the powers of the government, or take from the citizen the rights they have reserved. And if the Constitution recognizes the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, executive or judicia, has a right to draw such a distinction, or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees wh ch have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the government.

PROPERTY IN A SLAVE IS DISTINCTLY AND

cretion of Congress; but with powers not exceeding those which Congress itself, by the Constitution, is authorized to exercise over cit zens of the United States, in respect to their rights of property."

Senat r Benjamin, in his speech of May 22d, 1860, says that this syllabus was prepared and written out by Judge Taney himself.

MR. DOUGLAS ENDORSES THE WHOLE DECIS ON.

The Dred Scott decision was delivered in March, 1857. Mr. Buchanan had just been inaugurated, and the Senate had just adjourned. Mr. D. uglas took an early occasion to give in his adhesion, not only to the decision that Dred Scott was not a citizen, and therefore "Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of could not bring suit in a Circuit Court of the this opinion, upon a different point, THE RIGHT OF United States, but also to the obiter dictum, EXPRESSLY AFFIRMED IN THE CONSTITUTION. that neither Congress nor a Territorial LegisThe right of traffic in it, like an ordinary article of lature could prohibit slavery in a Terr.tory. merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States' in every State that might Having fou da Grand Jury in session at Springdesire it, for twenty years. And the Government in field, in the month of June following, an inexpress terms is pledged to protect it in all future time, vitation was p ocured fron that august body, if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in calling for the views of Mr. Douglas on three plain words, too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives point, to-wit: the Lecompton Convention in Congress a greater power over slave property, or Kan-as; the propos d invasion of Utah; and which entitles property of that kind to less protec'ion the Dred Scott decision. On the last menthan property of any other descrip ion. The only power conferred is the power, coupled with the tioned topic he spoke as follows: duty, of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights."

POINTS ESTABLISHED BY THE DECISION.

In the 19th vol. of Howard's Reports, page 395, a syllabus of the Dred Scott decision, embracing the points established by the Court, is given in the following words:

1st. "The Territory thus acquired, is acquired by the people of the United States for their common and equal benefit, through their agent and trustee-the Federal Government. Congress can exercise no power over the rights of persons or property of a cit zen in the Territory which is prohibited by the Consti: ution. The Government and the citizen, whenever the Territory is open to settlement, both enter with their respective rights defined and limited by the Constitution."

"The character of Chief-Justice Taney and the associate judges who concurred with him require no eulogyon vindication from me. They are endeared to the people of the United States by their eminent public servicesvenerated for their great learning, wisdom and excharacters and their exemplary lives. The poisonous perience and beloved for the spotless purity of their shafts of partisan malice will fall harmless at their feet, while their judicial decisions will stand in all future time, a proud monument to their greatness, the admiration of the good and wise, and a rebuke to the partisans of faction and lawless violence.

"The Court did not attempt to avoid responsibility by disposing of the case upon technical poin's without touching the merits, nor did they go out of their way to de ide questions not properly before them and directly presented by the record. Like honest and conscientious judges, as they are, they met and decided each point as it arose, and faithfully performed their whole duty, and nothing but their duty, to their country, BY CASE, and nothing but what was essential to the deDETERMINING ALL THE QUESTIONS IN THE cision of the c se upon its merits."-Douglas Springfield Grand Jury Speech, June 12th, 1857—ās pub

2d. "Congress has no right to prohibit citizens of any particular State or States, from taking up their homes there, while it permits citizens of other States to do so. Nor has it a right to give privileges to one class of cit-lished in the State Register. izens which it refuses to another. The Territory is acquired for their equal and common benefit, and if open to any, it must be open to all upon equal and the same terms."

3d. "EVERY CITIZEN HAS A RIGHT TO TAKE WITH HIM INTO THE TERRITORY ANY ARTICLE OF PRORERTY WHICH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES AS PROPERTY."

4th. "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES SLAVES AS PROPERTY, AND PLEDGES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT IT. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description, than it may Constitutionally exercise over

property of any other kind."

5th. "The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen of the United States taking with him his slaves when he removes to the Territory in question to reside, IS AN EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY OVER PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH IS NOT WARRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, and the

HE DROPS POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY
ALTOGETHER.

Mr. Douglas has so frequently re-endorsed the Dred Scott decision that it is hardly worth while to notice his subsequent remarks on that theme. Let it be observed, however, that after the Illinois election of 1858. Mr. Douglas ceased talking about the right of Territorial Legislatures to exclude slavery, but commenced on an entirely new theme, to-wit: "the right of the people to control slavery as property.' On the 22d of June, 1859, Mr.

removal of the plaintiff, by his owner, to that Territory, Douglas wrote the following letter to J. B. gave him no itle to freedom."

6th. "While it remains a Territory, Congress may legislate over it within the scope of i's constitutional powers, in relation to citizens of the United States, and may establish a Territorial Government, and the form of this local government must be regulated by the dis

Dorr, Esq., the editor of the Dubuque Herald, which was immediately telegraphed all over the country, as the ground-work of p inciples on which he would be willing to accept the nomination of the Charleston Convention:

guage, and we will consider whether it is not different in sense too. It is now that the Dred Scott decis on, or rather the Constitution under that decision, does not carry slavery into the Territories beyond the power of the people of the Territories to control it as other property. He does not say that people can drive it out, but they can control it as other property. The language is different: we should consider whether the sense is different. Driving a horse out of this lot is too pain a proposition to be mistaken about: it is putting him on the other side of the fence. Or it might be a sort of exclusion of him from the lot if you were to kill him and let the worms devour him; but neither of these things is the same as 'controlling him as other property.' That This remarkable statement, taken by itself, would be to feed him, to pamper him, to ride him, to use and abuse him, to make the most money out of him would seem to be an open avowal of the Re'as other property;' but please you, what do the men | publican doctrine that Congress is the right

ful guardian of the Territories until they are
prepared for admission into the Union as
States, but taken with the context, it is no
less than a foreshadowing of the Dred Scott
decision. In other words, it denies that spe-
cies of " sovereignty to the Territories
which authorizes them to exclude slavery, and
holds them on this point rigidly "subject to
the Constitution of the United States," as in·
terpreted by the Supreme Court. It is con
clusive, however, of one thing, to-wit, that
"the sovereignty of a Territory remains in abey-
ance"-that the people cannot do the things
which Mr. Douglas himself proclaimed they
might do that they cannot do those things
either through a Territorial Legislature or by
Mass Convention, for the reason that their
sovereignty is "suspended in the United
States, in trust for the people, UNTIL THEY

SHALL BE ADMITTED INTO THE UNION AS A
STATE."

HE THINKS SENATOR SUMNER SHOULD BE "KICKED LIKE A DOG.'

On the 20th day of May, 1856, Mr. Douglas indulged in the following language, in reply to Senator Sumner-the day on which he was bludgeoned by Preston S. Brooks:

HIM AS WE WOULD A DOG! A hundred times has he called the Nebraska Bill a swindle-an act of infamy, and each time went on to illustrate the complicity of each man who voted for it, in perpetrating the How dare he approach one of

"It is his object to provoke some of us to KICK

crime. * * *

these gentlemen, to give him his hand, after that act? If he felt the courtesies between men, he would not do it. He would deserve to have himself SPIT IN THE FACE for doing so."-Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1855-56, page 545.

HE DEFENDS THE BORDER RUFFIANS OF MISSOURI.

In the same report, on page 9 thereof, Mr. Douglas defended the Border Ruffian invaders of Kansas, as follows:

"The natural consequence was that immediate steps were taken by the people of the western counties of Missouri to stimulate, organize and carry into effect a system of emigration, similar to that of the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company, for the avowed purpose of counteracting the effects and protecting themselves and their domes ic institutions from the consequences of that company's operations. The material difference in the character of the two rival and conflicting movements consists in the fact that the one had its origin in an AGGRESSIVE and the other in a DEFENSIVE policy."

HE DECLARES THE BOGUS LEGISLATURE OF KAN-
SAS TO HAVE BEEN VALID.

In the same report, and on page 15 thereof, Mr. Douglas asserted the validity of the bogus legislature and its acts, as follows:

"So far as the question involves THE LEGALITY OF THE KANSAS LEGISLATURE AND THE VALIDITY OF ITS ACTS, it is entirely immaterial whether we adopt the reasoning and conclusion of the minority or majority reports, for each proves that the LEGISLATURE WAS LEGALLY AND DULY CONSTITUTED.

HE SAYS THE PEOPLE OF KANSAS MUST BE

"SUBDUED."

In the same report, and on page 40 thereof, he advocates the subjection of the people of Kansas, in the followi: g words:

"In this connection, your Committee feel sincere satisfaction in commending the messages and proclamations of the President, in which we have the gratifying assurance that the supremacy of the laws will be ma ntained; that rebellion will be crushed; * * * that the federal and local laws will be vindicated against all attempts of organized resistence."

HE VINDICATES DAVID R. ATCHISON.

In the same speech, and on the same day, Mr. Douglas proceeded to vindicate David R. Atchison, of Missouri, who was then leading a company of Border Ruffians against Kansas, in the following eulogistic terms:

"The Senator has also made an assault on the late President of the Senate-General Atchison-A GENTLE

MAN OF AS KIND A NATURE, OF AS GENUINE AND TRUE A
HEART AS EVER ANIMATED A HUMAN SOUL.
He is impul-

sive and generous, carrying his GOOD QUALITIES some-
times to an excess, which induces him to say and do
many things that would not meet my approval; but all
who know him, know him to be A GENTLEMAN AND AN
HONEST MAN-true and loyal to the Constitution of his
country."- Appendix to the Congressional Globe,
1855-56, page 546.

HE THINKS SENATOR TRUMBULL IS A TRATOR,
AND THAT ALL TRAITORS SHOULD BE HUNG.

speech on Kansas affairs, in the Senate, March
The following extract from Mr. Douglas'
20th, 1856, is submitted without comment.
The language is sufficiently direct for the com-
prehension of all fair-minded men:

"A word or two more on another point and I will close. My colleague has made an assault on the President of the United States for his efforts to vindicate the supremacy of the laws, and put down insurrection and rebellion in the Territory of Kansas. In my opinion, the President of the United States is entitled to the thanks of the whole country for the promptness and energy with which he has met the cri-is. It was his imperative duty to maintain the supremacy of the laws, and see that they are faithfully executed. It was his duty to suppr: ss rebellion and put down treason. My colleague says that it will be necessary to catch the traitor before the President can hang hm. My opinion is that, from the signs of the times, and in view of all that is passing around us, as well as at a distance, there will be very little difficulty 'in arresting the traitors-and that, too, WITHOUT GOING ALL THE WAY TO KANSAS TO FIND THEM! [Laughter.] This gov ernment has shown itself the most powerful of any on earth in all respects except one. It has shown itself

And again, in his speech of March 12th, equal to foreign war or to domestic defence; equal to

1856:

"The minority report advocates foreign interference; we advocate self-government and non-interference. We are ready to meet the issue, and there will be no dodging. We intend to meet it boldly; TO REQUIRE SUBMISSION TO THE LAWS AND TO THE CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES; TO REDUCE TO SUB

any emergency that may arise in the ex rcise of its high functions in all things EXCEPT THE POWER TO HANG A TRAITOR!

I trust in God that the time is not near at hand, and that it may never come, when it will be the imperative duty of those charged with the faithful execution of the laws, to exercise that power. I trust that calmer and wiser counsels will prevail; that passion may subside,

This amendment of Mr. Toombs was referred to the committee of which Mr. Douglas was Chairman, and reported back by him on the 30th of June, with the words "And ratified by the people at the election for the adop-ritory tion of the Constitution" stricken out. On the 9th of December, 1857, Senator Bigler explained how the submission clause came to be stricken out, as follows:

WITHOUT REFERRING EITHER THE CONSTITUTION TO THE PEOPLE, OR THE QUESTION OF ADMISSION AGAIN TO CONGRESS. It was intend"I was present when that subject was discussed by Senators, before the bill was introduced, and the ques-dix to the Congressional Globe, 1857-58, page 127. ed as an assent to admission, in advance."—Appntion was raised aud discussed whether the Constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It was held by the most intelligent on the subject, that in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better that THERE SHOULD BE NO SUCH PROVISION IN THE TOOMBS' BILL; and it is my understanding in all the intercourse I had, that that Convention would make a Constitution and send it here WITHOUT SUBMITTING IT TO THE POPULAR VOTE."-Cong. Globe, part 1, 1857-8, page 21.