■ __ | .. . . | |||||m jm\
f. raj i> Jtfi<HVV
__
__m* ^gnrulto, inrifll JlXaunfnrtaring, Cununwial JlaMtigrtfi, liTOmntt, kx.
pim.isiri:!) hvkry Wednesday, at dks arc,praiiuk mnvry abkavsas p,y .i n aiobkiu. tM\is-s2PER YKah. in advance
VO L.UME VI. BES AUC. ABKA NS A S. SEPTEMBER ‘26. 1800. NUMBER 45.
_a T> CA fm* ra « mm. _ I _ _______ - - - - --—■——————————.
THt. Uld Any uxnzijbiN.
TEKMS-**per annum,
PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.
riFTV NUMBERS MAKING A VOLUME.
rates of advertising.
IUTK9 of Advertising.—One square (10
lnM of this size type) for one insertion, $1;
each additional insertion, 50 cents.
1 m. | 2 in. | 3 m. | 6 m. fyear.
i Square, $2 5o|$o 001*8 00|$l600 $15 00
a Squares, 5 00 R 00|10 00 12 00 17 00
1 Squares, R 00 10 00,12 00 15 00] 25 00
, , Column, 10 00112 00 15 00! 17 00' 30 00
: i 2 Column, 112 00! 15 00117 00 20 001 40 00
! o 4 Column, 15 00 17 00 20 00, 25 001 50 00
! 1 Column, 18 00 20 00 25 00 30 00 fiO 00
(^•Advertisers by the year will be res
tricted to their legitimate business.
-^'Advertisements displayed by large type,
or jn double columns, charged double the above
Personal communications charged dou
(,1s the rates of regular advertisements.
,Legal advertisements will he charged,
fo'rorie square or less, first insertion $l,and
SO cents per square for each additional inser
tion. ,j 7
Announcing candidates, for State and
District’offices, $7; County offices,'$5; Town-*
ship, offices $3, invariably in advance.
Culls on persons to become candidates
are charged at the usual rates, except when
„,,1Sons making the calls are subscribers to
our paper. Payment in advance.
IgjrPolitieal circulars charged as adver
tiwwrtw;
pST Advertisements not ordered for a spe
cked time, will be inserted till forbidden, and
charged for accordingly.
[ggr A11 advertising to be paid for quarterly.
OUR JOS PRINTING DEPARTMENT.
We have supplied ourselves with a good
assortment of Printing Material, and are
rPM(y to execute all kinds of Job Printing, on
reasonable terms.
We are prepared to print Pamphlets, Cata
logues, Posters, large or small, Cards, Ball
Tickets, Bill Heads, Blanks of every descrip
lion, for Clerks, Sheriff's, Justices of the
Peace, Constables, &c.
lanawmw-e-1 veuKU'in-nrOKira-r.... w mjmbmmmjimimm
® ST. 'wjvjya
D HUG gist; f#
I jj a N- D
4-a. -tt. J- * -c*- JL ». -Su f
ALSO, DEALER IN
Stationery, Perfum ery,
FIWCY ARTICLES, &c.,
Lane ft Watts’ oi l stand, Buena Vista street.
®i£S ^mi^o
5^* Fine Wines, Brandies, &c., for Me
dicinal purposes, always on hand.
§3r Physic inns prescriptions arc accurately
compounded of the best articles that can be
procured. janl8-tf.
r A. JltDSOX,
pARPENTER AND JOINER, Also,
Dealer in Sash. Doors, Mantles, Window
an I Door Frames, &c.
fj§“ Shop corner of Er'win and Park streets.
DBS ARC, ARKANSAS.
V. 55.—t'ofilu8 made to order, on short
notice, feb22:ly.
' .a m. sm im®W,
BUSGY AND CARRIAGE
XVI anufac twr or,
Hickory Plain, Ark.,
AVi 11 make and repair Buggies
—and Carriages, &c., to order. Or
ders respectfully solicited.
!s9* All orders will be readily attended to,
all new work warranted twelve months. 1 re
,,lrn my thanks to the public for past favors,
and hope to receive a liberal patronage in the
future. nov23-tf.
J. S. ,IXI)E!180X,
SADDLE, BRIDLE!
-A N D
Mar ness .fSunnfaclnrer >
DKS Alta, ARKANSAS.
H ESP ECTFULLY informs
the citizens of Prairie and
adjacent counties, that lie has on hand,
wd is prepared to manufacture to order,
Saddles, Bridles, Martingales, Buggy,
Carriage and Hack Harness,
As'weU’M cfwy other description of work
usually done in such establishments.
89* Shop on Lyon street, back of Frith &
Jackson’s store. jan21-l>''
£L J CA SM1 Tin yp
iVflP'nn rniri Rncrirw lWfllHnfT.
tt - w OOJ_r
MARTIN SHETTER,
des ARC, ARKANSAS,
rnHANKFUL to the
I people for their past fa-If jl
,, vors,respectfully announces V v
he has opened a shop at T. V. Lee’s old
' ind, on Park street, where he is prepared to
™?hkinds of wprk in the above line.
iJ^Rlarksmithing, wagon and buggy build
% wheelbarrows, repairing, &c., done on
Hiort notice.
®*Horse-shoeing one promptly,
feb 18-tf 1
JOHN ffl c N A ffl ee7
r a i jl o n,
®«s Arc, Arkansas.
CHOP ON BUENA VISTA STREET—
V opposite tho1 “Nucleus House”—where lie
.prepared to execute all kinds of wrork in
'l-Uie of business, ip a neat and fashionable
^ul.V 27, 1859_[tf]
'v M • GR E E N SLA I) E,
•Jier chant Tailor,
ct unn Des Arc, Akk.,
S J on Buena Vista street, one door West
, °‘ Jhe Post office. All work executed in
febatf'x1 tasllionaljl0 style
J°Rdan bodemeTrT
SHlVlXo, HAIR-CUTTING,
^IR-DRESSING saloon.
^AHPooing AND HAIR-DYING,
Ij ^ VISTA Strebit. south-side, two
Are if* ea»t of G. .k. j. McLaren\% Des
’ Arkansas, janll-tf.
.JgWESSIONAL CARDS.
W' t5U?^?Y> Physician and
Surgeon, West Point, Arkansas. Offers
thownrnnT?,rnal s9rvices to thc citizens of the
town and adjacent country. [augl5 tf
TVRS. bTrDSONG & TUCKER, Resi
1/ dent Physicians, Surgeons and Ac
couciiF.uns, having formed a co-partnership,
offer their professional services to the citi
zens of Des Arc and surrounding country.
• .i"1 uir 'onfr experience in their profes
h.?pe to share a libera] patronage.
. Particular attention given to all chro
Mic diseases of females.
Office—Buena Vista street, first room up
stair.-, in Perry & Jackson’s new building
augl5 tfj 6
Eni.ANTON. m. n. J.VO. n. blanton, iw. d.
R. J. BL ANTON & SON., Physicians
, A*D Surgeons. (j^” Office and resi
dence, Centre Point, Prairie county, Arkan
sa9- ___[aug8 ly
T. SANDERS. j L NEEL
PVRS. SANDERS & NEEL. Resident Phy
-* ' sicians, Des Arc, Ark., having formed a
partnership in the practice of their profession,
tender a continuation of their services to the
citizens of Des Arc and adjacent country,
iir C. “,lp stairs> corner of Buena Vista and
Woodruff streets. iny26-tf
DR- H. ARMISTEAD having permanent
ly located at Des Arc, offers his pro
fessional services to the citizens of the town
and adjacent country.
(EP* Office on Lyon street, Martin & Simp
son’s Law Office. [march21-6m
DR. WM. BETHELL will continue the
Practice of Medicine in Des Arc and
vicinity. From his long experience in his
profession, and having resided in Arkansas
during the past fifteen years, he hopes to
receive a share of the public patronage.
CS9” Office at Balsly’s Drug Store. Resi
dence near the forks of t.he Little Rock and
Searcy roads, first house on the South side of
the road, entering the town. mar2l-ly.
J. J. LANE.w. h. chambers.
DRS. LANE & CHAMBERShaving form
ed a partnership in the practice of
their profession, tender their services to the
citizens of Des Arc and adjacent country.
From their experience they hope to share
at least a portion of the patronage of the
public.
(EP” Office on Buena Vista street, at Bals
ly’s Drug Store. febl:tf
DR. N. L. RAGLAND,having located at
the residence of R. B. Trez.evarit,
(formerly B. B. Allens place,j) 2J miles from
Wattensaw Landing, offers his professional
services to the public.
@59" Particular attention given to deseases
of women and children. jan 1-ly.
s m. v\ . r. w/Yuon, navino; located at
l) Des Arc, offers liis Professional Ser
vices to the public. (I^“ Calls promptly at
tended to. may29,1858-ly*
SW. SORRELLS, M. D., Physician and
• Surgeon. Brownsville, Ark. Office—At
Lightfoot’s Drug Store, Main st. je2-tf
JNQ. JAY WILKINS, Attorney at Law.
and Solicitor in Chancery; Oakland
Grove, Prairie Co., Arkansas. Will give
prompt attention to all land matters, the
collection of claims which may be entrusted
to his care, and the practice of 'his profession
generally in the counties of Prairie, Pulaski,
Pope, Perry, White, Monroe, Conway, Jeffer
son, Yell and Jackson. auglo tf.
RT. SIMPSON, Attorney at Law, Des
• Arc, Arkansas. Will practice in Prai
rie, White, Arkansas, Monroe, Jackson, and
the adjoining counties. Office on Lyon street,
jy 18, I8601 _
S. W. WILLIAMS. J. W. MARTIN.
WILLIAMS & MARTIN, Attorneys
at Law, Little Rock, Ark. Will
practice in the counties of Pulaski, Prairie,
Perry, Yell, Pope, Conway, White, Jackson,
Monroe, Arkansas, Jefferson, Hot Springs and
Saline.and inthe Supremeand Federal Courts,
at Little Rock. jy 18, 1800.
m J. WOODSON, Attorney at Law,
1 Des Arc, Arkdnsas, will practice in the
Fifth Judicial Ciicuit, and the counties of
White, Jackson and Monroe.
*„* All business entrusted to his care will
be promptly attended to. may?-ly.
\W. McNEILL, Attorney at Law, Des
• Arc, Arkansas, practices in the courts
of Prairie and adjacent counties. (J^”Oflice,
corner of Erwin and Lyon streets. [apll.
EW. DOCJGLASS, Attorney at Law,
. Brownsville, Arkansas, will promptly
attend to all business entrusted to him, in
Prairie, Arkansas, Monroe,SI. Francis, Jack
son and White counties.
* * Prompt attention given to the collection
of all claims entrusted to his care. apr28
B," D.-TURNER,.. T. JONES.
Turner & jones, attorneys at
Law, Brownsville, Arkansas. Will at
tend promptly to all business entrusted te
them. '_iall4-tf
/St R. LAWRENCE, Attorney at
• Law, lies Arc, Anvansus.
tlcc in till! Counties of Prairie, Arkansas,
Monroe, Jackson, White and St. Francis.—
Prompt attention given to all business entrust
ed to his care. Office corner of Walton and
Woodruff Streets._jan4-tf.
O H. HEMPSTEAD, Attorney at Law,
O* Little Rock, Arkansas. Office on Mark
ham street. __ janll-tl.
r S GANTTL W' BRONAUGH.
G'i ANTT & BRONAUGH, Attorneys
T at Law, Brownsville, Arkansas. Will
attend promptly to any business confided to
them. __sePtl4tf
rri B. KENT, Attorney at Law, Des Arc,
1 . Arkansas, will practice in the courts of
Prairie, White, Monroe, Arkansas, St. tran
cis, Jackson, and Independence counties. All
business intrusted to his care shall meet with
prompt attention. §y Office onJLyon
street. __—_
T e7 GATEWOOD, Attorney at
.1 Law, Des Arc, Prairie county, Arkansas.
Will practice in the counties of Prairie, Ar
kansas, Monroe, St. Francis, Jackson, White,
Conway, and Pope. Will investigate Land
Titles, and act as General Land Agent.
Prompt attention given to all business entrust
ed to him. , . ,__
Office—First door up stairs, one door
East of John Jackson &, Co.’s, Store.
febl3-tf.__
J r.. HOLLOW ELL... D. JACOWAY.
TTOLLOWELL & JACOWAY, At
I torneys at Law. Dardanelle, Aikansas.
Will practice in the counties of Yell, Perry,
Saline, Pulaski, Prairie, Conway and Pope.
je26-tf __
TACOB T. MORRILL, Attorney at
.1 Law. Notary Public, and Justice of
the Peace, G’larington, (Sunfish.) Monro6
j County, Ohio. [juL7-tr.
newfirm,
B. V. FERRY..N. s. WILLIAMSON. • J. M. PETTEY.
Perry, Williamson & Pettey,
(Successors to J. A. Jennings & Co.,)
South Side of liuena Vista Street,
DES ARC, ARKANSAS:
dealers in
STAPLE, FANCY, FOREIGN AND
Domestic Dry Goods.
A COMPLETE ASSORTMENT... ^
m @1
RIBBONS, TRIMMINGS, AND
If sum © y ilff4a©l©s,
OF EVERY DESCRIPTION:
ALSO—LARGE DEALERS IN
J BOOTS, SHOES, HATS, r*
CAPS, READY-MADE CLOTH
ing, Hardware, Queensware, Bonnets, &c.
Gtr3p" A large lot of Plantation Goods, of
every description—all at the very lowest pos
sible prices.
(EiF” All kinds of goods, by the piece, at
wholesale prices. ' auglo-tf
J. A. SAMPLE M. H. MITCHELL. J. M. SAMPLE.
SAMPLE, MITCHELL & CO.
!pjjj| Cotton Factors,
Commission. Receiving and Forwarding
MEH.CHA.KrTS,
Madison street, opposite the Union Bank,
au22-6m Memphis, Tenu.
R. A. PARKER, SR. R. A. PARKER, JP..
R. A. PARKER &, SON,
Cotton Zj Factors
dommiBsion & iormarbutg
MERCHANTS,
NO. 6 HOWARD’S ROW,
jyl8-3m Memphis, Tciin.
A. WHIPPLE. ARCH REID. M. O. HOPKINS.
PLANING MILL,
—AND—
SASH, DOORS AND BLINDS.
WE have recently built a large addition to
our Plaining Mill, and fitted up our
manufacturing department with all the mo
dern machinery for the manufacture of Sash.
Doors, Blinds, Moulding; Mantels, Door and
Window Frames, Casings, Cornice, Brackets,
Newel Posts, Turning and Scroll Work, of
every style. We have on band a large stock
of Lumber of all kinds, Flooring, White Pine
and Poplar Weather-boarding, Sheeting Shin
gles, Fencing, and a large lot of Cedar Posts.
Our manufacturing department is under the
supervision of an experienced foreman, and we
flatter ourselves that as to price, quality, style
and durability we can compete with any simi
lar establishment in the United States. Or
ders promptly filled.
WHIPPLE, REID & CO.
Planing Mill, near the Bayou on Madison
Street, Memphis, Tenn.
Sept. 5, 1860—ly.
REMOVAL!
THE undersigned has removed his Carpet
and Curtain business, to the Jackson
Block, 363 Main Street, where he is prepared
to show the best assortment of Carpet and
Curtain Goods in Memphis. Velvet, Tapes
try, Brussels, Super and Common Carpets,
Rugs, Mats, Matting, Cocoa Matting, etc.
Silk. Damask, Lade and Common Curtains,
Tassels, Loops, Bands, Picture Cord, Corni
ces, etc.; Buff and White Holland of differ
ent widths; Gilt, Landscape and Plain Shades.
Floor Oil Cloths, from six to twenty-four feet
wide.
Finkle & Lyons’ Family Sewing Machine,
the best machine made, for from $55 to $130.
The best of workmen on hand to cut, make
and lay carpets, hang curtains, shades, &.c.
H. M. GROSVENER,
Jackson Block, 363 Main St., Memphis.
je30-tf _
Dr.Geo.HADFIELDS
HOMOEOPATHIC
sp[i©DFa© Kiiiioii.
XT'EVER AND AGUE BOX CONTAIN
X ing 4 vials, with full directions warranted
to cure $2 00
Fevers, vial with directions, - - 25
Scarlet Fever Preventive, - 25
Headache, - - - 2 vials,
Rheumatism, - 2 do. 50
Spasms, ... 2 do. 50
Croup, - - - 2 do. 50
Diarrhoea, - 2 do. 50
Diarrhma of Children, - 2 do. 50
Dysentery, - 2 do. 50
Colic, - - - - 2 do. 50
Coughs and Colds, - 2 do. 50
Neuralgia. - 2 do. 50
nr Medicine containing 77 vials, and a
large work giving full directions $15 00
For sale at this office. For sale Wholesale
and Retail by Dr. Geo. Hadfield, Little Rock,
Arkansas. aPr 28-tf.
Administrator’s Notice.
HAVING taken out letters of administra
tion on the estate of Levi Byram, de
ceased, this is to notify all persons having
claims against said estate to present them,
properly authenticated, within one year from
this date, or they may be precluded from any
benefit in said estate, and if not exhibited
within two years, they shall be forever bar
red and precluded from all benefit in said es
tate. 1 W. W. BYRAM,
au29-lm Hickory Plain, Prairie Co.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,
THAT I forewarn all persons from cutting
or removing any logs, bushes or timber
of any kind, off of any of my lots in the town
of Des Arc, as the law will be most rigidly
enforced against any person or persons for so
join". S. P. CATLIN.
April 8, I860.—aprll-tf. _
COGS ! COGS! ! ]COGS !!!
Wheat! Wheat!! Wheat!!!
WANTED immediately at the Lake Bluff
Steam Saw and Flouring Mills, any
quantity Wheat and Saw Logs, for which the
hi"hest market price will be paid in cash.
° E. G. ATKINS.
March 29,1860.—apr4-6m.
STRAYED OR STOCEN.
a MUSTANG PONY, of dark color, very
A near a roan—with white face and white
feet. He is a range horse about six years old.
A liberal reward will be given for his delivery
to me at Des Arc, or at the livery stable of
T. F. Greer & Bro.
june9:tf J. E. GATEWOOD.
For the Des Arc Citizen.]
“MR. DOUGLAS’ GREAT SPEECH.”
Mr. Dougins, in his celebrated speech
of the 15th nnd 16th of May, 1860, as
sumes as the basis of Jjis subsequent ar
gument the following propositions: That
the Democratic party, in 1848, by its sup
port of Gen. Cass, committed itself to the
doctrines of popular or squatter sovereign
ty; that the same doctrine of popular or
squutter sovereignty was incorporated into
the Compromise measures of 1850; that
it was re-affirmed by the Baltimore Con
vention of 1852, nnd that it was in 1854
engrafted upon the Kansas-Nebraska le
gislation of that year; that it was embo
died in the Cincinnati Platform of 1856.
The view of the matter which Mr. Doug
las here presents involves such a succes
sion of fallacies ingeniously combined, as
to place any adequate review of it almost
without the ordinary range of newspaper
discussion. Still, Mr. Editor, if it is not
trespassing too much upon your space, I
propose a review, et seriatim, of each one
of his assumed facts.
To the support of the propositions I have
alluded to, his elaborate argument is al
most entirely devoted. His argument con
sists in extended quotations from the re
solves of conventions and from the speech
es of public men who have been identified
with the discussion of this question in its
various phases. An examination of it
will show that it is a play upon the word
“non-intervention,’’ and that all his cases
of seeming inconsistency are made out by
assigning to that term a meaning differ
ent from what has ever been assigned to
it by politicians in the South. The cases
of appareut concurrence with his views,
which are quoted by him with ambi-dex
trous tact, now that those holding them
differ with him as to their true intent and
meaning, are but castles in the air of his
own construction. With this general de
scription of the line of Mr. Douglas’ ar
gument, I proceed to the task I have im
posed upon myself.
The fallacy of his first postulate—that the
support of Gen. Cass, in 1848, committed
the party to his view of non-intervention,
is apparent to the most superficial obser
ver. Every one at all conversant with the
current history of political events for a few
years past, must Know mat me rsicuoison
letter, containing Gen. Cass’ views upon
that subject, was the subject of controver
sy at the South. The true construction of
that letter was the prominent question en
tering into the canvass in the Southern
States. Democratic orators, on every oc
casion, denounced the doctrine of squatter,
or, as it was at that time called, Peon sov
ereignty, and affirmed that the Nicholson
letter did not commit Gen. Cass to it. A
perusal of the Democratic journals of that
period will show with what spirit Demo
cratic speakers repulsed the assertion that
their candidate favored the doctrine of
squatter sovereignty. A suspicion that he
entertained this doctrine caused Gen. Cass
to loose some of the most reliable Demo
cratic Slates in the South, and whatever
of Democratic support he received was in
consequence of the constantly reiterated
assertion that it only meant the Territories
when they should be admitted as States.
To show that I do not misrepresent the
Democratic sentiment of that period I make
the following extract from the series of
resolutions adopted by the Democratic
State Convention of Virginia, on the 29th
of February, 1848 :
“ That we do most solemnly declare that
there is no power in Congress, or a Territo
rial Legislature—which is its creature—nor
anywhere else, save only in the people of a
Territory in the adoption of a State Constitu
tion preparatory to admission in the Union,
to prevent the migration of any citizen of any
State with his property, whether it be slaves
or anything else, to any domain which may
be acquired by the common blood and treas
ure of the people of all the States. * *
• * * * that we will, under no
“political necessity,” support for the Presi
dency or Vice-Presidency, any person who
shall not be the firm and avowed opponent of
any plan or doctrine which in any way inter
feres with the right of the citizens of any one
State to possess and enjoy all their property
in the common domain.”
On the 4th of March the venerable
l nuiiius iviiomu, uummuuuug uu uicoo ico*
olutions through the columns of his paper,
which was, at that time, the confidential
organ of Mr. Polk's Jldministration,
said:
“Our doctrines are here fully and fearlessly
proclaimed. • • • • You will find
them in these resolutions. They are worthy
of our attentive perusal and close study, and
they will be found so purely, honestly and en
tirely Democratic that the strongest necessa
ry requisite is to keep them constantly before
the people,”
In February of the same year, the Al
abama Democratic State Convention re
solved—
“That it is the duty of the Federal Govern
ment, by all proper legislation, to secure an
entry into those Territories for all the citi
zens of the United States, together with their
property of every description, and that the
same shall be PROTECTED by the United
States, while the Territories are under its au
thority.”
Other Southern States adopted similar
resolutions, and if it was not trespassing
too much upon your space, I would quote
them. Enough, however, has already
been said to show that as early as 1848
Southern Democrats repudiated this dog
ma as a political heresy.
Equally fallacious is his assemption that
the doctrine of squatter sovereignty was
incorporated into the Compromise legisla
tion of 1850. Before inquiring whether
squatter sovereignty is engrafted upon
those measures, let us determine whai
squatter sovereignty is. As enunciated
by its ablest advocates, it assumes that the
people of a Territory, like those of a Stale
have the right to legislate, directly or in
directly, upon all subjects that a State gov
ernment or a member of the Union may
rightfully legislate upon. Without a con
stitution, save the organic act; without a
limitation, except so far as the organic act
can limit, it makes them complete sover
eigns; while, at the same lime, it admits
that sovereignty is rightfully derived, or,
to use the language of Judge Douglas,
“rests in abeyance in the General Gov
ernment as trustees for the people of the
Territories.” In its practical application
to the question of slavery it assumes that
a Territorial Legislature has control over
the question of private rights, nnd is com
petent to determine the permanent politi
cal status of a Territory as to slavery or
freedom. As a corrollary from these pos
tulates it deduces the conclusion that, if
the legislature of a Territory should pass
an act impairing the rights of slaveholders
within its limits, and Congress were to re
peal it and protect the slaveholder in his
rights, it would be the most palpable usur
pation.
Now, I deny in toto that any such doc
trine is enunciated in the Compromise
measures of 1850, and am willing to test
it by an appeal to the record. By refe
rence to the acts organizing the Territo
ries of Utah and New Mexico, (which
was the only Territorial legislation embra
ced in these celebrated measures,) it will
be found that the second section provides
that,
" When admitted, as a State, the said
Territory, or any portion of the same, shall
be received into the Union with or with
out slavery, as thei«■ Constitution may pre
scribe at the time of their admission."
It is further provided that,
“The legislative power of said Territory
shall extend to all rightful subjects of leg
islation, not inconsistent with the Constitu
tion of the United States or the provisions
of th is act."
Again :
"All the laws passed by the Legislative
Assembly and Governor shall be submitted
to the Congress of the United States, and
if disapproved of, shall be null and void."
An examination of the body of the bill
show's that it had about it the following
marked characteristics, any one but the
first nf which is inconsistent with Judrre
Douglas’ notion of popular sovereignly:
1. A distinct repudiation of Congressional
prohibition.
2. That the Territorial Government is pro
visional and subordinate in its character, and
that, as such, its acts are subject to the appro
val or disapproval of Congress.
3. Complete power to the people to deter
mine, “as their Constitution may proscribe at
the time of their admission,” the character of
their institutions.
4. The placing of each citizen’s life, liber
ty and PROPERTY, not subject to the vary
ing whims of the populace, but under the old
safeguard of the judgment of his peers and the
laws of the land.
5. The retention upon the part of the Fede
ral Government of the right to prescribe, not
only what shall be its organic act,and to throw
around said organic act such limitations as ft
may see proper, subject only to the Constitu
tion of the United States, but also to appoint
its executive and judicial agents and to super
vise its legislation.
Any one of these characteristics, but the
exceptional one already indicated, is whol
ly irreconcilable with Judge Douglas’ as
sumption that ‘‘the great principle which
underlies these measures is the right of
the people o( each Slate and each Terri
tory, while a Territory, to decide this ques
tion for themselves.” In no clause is
sovereignty given, and in none can it
arise by implication. The very limita
tions thrown around the organic act are
inconsistent with the idea of sovereignty.
It is a necessary attribute of a sovereignty
to establish its own organic act. It is
another necessary element of sovereignty
to make and execute its own laws. The
legislation of 1850, however, withholds all
these essentials of sovereignty from the
Territorial Government, and assigns to the
Federal Government the power, not only
to establish its organic act, but also to ap
point its executive and judicial officers,
and to determine the validity of its laws.
Within and of itself, it has only a qual
ified power to enact a law, and the judi
cial construction and execution of its
enactments must depend upon Federal
agents. In a word, the whole act
shows that the government established by
it was intended tn he trmnnrarvnnd nrn
visional in its character. It is absurd to
attribute sovereignty to any such govern
ment; fer no government which is crea
ted and limited by Congress, and has its
existence by the sufferance of that body,
can be sovereign. It gives the people, it
is true, the ultimate power to determine
this question ; but it virtually inhibits the
exercise of that power until they come to
form a State Constitution, preparatory to
their admission into the Union. In the
meantime their legislative power is limited
and dependent upon the will of Congress.
The platform of 1852 simply pledges
the party to abide by the Compromise
measures of 1850. I have shown that the
legislation of that year is not based upon
the idea of popular sovereignty ; of course,
then, the Pierce platform does not en
dorse squatter sovereignty.
The Territorial legislation of 1854,
which Judge Douglas also assumes to be
based on the idea of popular sovereignty,
differs very slightly from that of 1850. It
gives the people the ultimate power to de
termine the character of their institutions,
“subject to-the Constitution of the United
States,’’ but leaves the rights of the slave
holders, during the Territorial condition,
subject to the general principles of the
Constitution and the courts of the country.
The repeal of the Missouri restriction of
1820 clearly entitled slaveholders to enter
the Territory with their slaves, whiie the
insertion of the clause requiring "all cases
involving the title to slaves, or involving
the question of personal freedom'' to be re
ferred to the Federal Courts, establishes
j that of a Territory on this subject, on an
the fact, beyond the shadow of a doubt,
that it was never contemplated by the or
ganic act that the right to hold slaves in
Kansas should be dependent upon the will
of the Territorial legislature. If it had
been intended to give the Territorial legis
lature the right to determine this question,
why is provision made for inking it to the
Supreme Court ? By the very terms of
the organic act, if a single slaveholder
were deprived of his right to hold slaves
in Kansas by the action of the Territorial
legislature, he would have n right to ap
peal to the Federal Courts,'and the deci
sion of that tribunal would be final, irre
spective of the action of the Territorial
legislature. If the slaveholder were de
prived of his right to his property, it would
not be in virtue of the hostile legislation
of the Territorial legislature, but in conse
quence of the adverse decision of the Ju
diciary, to which tribunal, acting under the
general principles of the Constitution and
American public law, exclusive and origi
nal jurisdiction over the subject has been
assigned. The idea of appealing from
the decision of a constitutional convention
of a State—the highest embodiment of
sovereignly known to our forms of law—
to the Supreme Court of the United Stales
to determine whether slave property shall
be admitted or prohibited, is an absurdity.
And yet Judge Dougins’ construction of
the Kansas bill involves this very absurdi
ty, for it places the power of a State, and
that of a Territory on this subject, on an
equal footing.' The organic act goes fur
ther, and declares that when a legal ma
jority of the residents of either Territory
form a Constitution, then they may either
recognize or exclude slavery, as they may
elect. It gives the people the ultimate
power to decide this question, and fixes
the period and defines the time when they
may exercise this right. In the mean
time, it places the rights of slaveholders
in both Territories subject, as we have al
ready observed, not to the Territorial leg
islature—not to the Lynch law of the grab
game of squatter sovereignty, but to the
courts, acting under the general principles
of the Constitution and American public
law.
The contemporaneous history of this
measure shows that this was the construe
tion assigned to it at the time of its pass
age by its supporters. Almost every sup
porter of this measure who participated
in its discussion, avowed “ that the extent
of the limit imposed by the constitution
on the Territorial Legislature ” and per
consequence the right to hold Slaves during
its Territorial condition, was made depen
dant, not upon the Legislature, but was
explicitly made a subject of Judicial de
cision. I go further and assert that every
Southern man who supported this measure
declared that if such unlimited power was
intended to be conferred on the Territorial
Legislature as Judge Douglas now
assigns to it; it could not receive his sup
port. Gov. Brown, of Mississippi, in the
discussion pending this measure declared:
“ If I thought that in voting for this Bill as
it now stands, I was conceding the right
of the people of the Territory, during
their Territorial condition to exclude
slavery, I would withhold my vote." Mr.
Barksdale, of the same State, a warm
supporter of the Bill, in the same discus
sion declares *• I deem it proper here to
declare that if non-intervention means,
as some here contend, the abandonment
of any duty by the Federal Government,
to avoid the hazard of performing it, I
scorn and utterly reject the doctrine. It
is only accept able to me and there I repre
sent as a principle which is to confine the
Federal Government to the great obiect for
which it was instituted not to fetter its
arm, so that it cannot hold its protecting
shield over every citizen of the United
States, whether found within the Territory
subject to Federal jurisdiction, or upon the
high seas, where federal jurisdiction alone
could avail him.. With this interpretation
of the doctrine of non-intervention I ac
cept it. # # # # #
* # * # But if on the other
hand the doctrine of squatter sovereignty
be the true one, that is to say if the terri
tories belong to the few or many who
chance first to reach it, we have nothing
to delegate.” Mr. Butler, of South Car
olina. savs. “ I am perfectly willintr to
leave it under the constitution to be deci
ded by (he law tribunals of the country.
If in the process of settlement the people
of these Territories shall be prepared to
take upon themselves the attributes of a
sovereign State, they can then certainly
either admit or exclude slavery. I pre
sume that will not be denied by any one.
During their growth and before they be
come a State, can they assume to exercise
a power which Congress itself cannot
confer upon them? They can have no
derivitive power on the subject from any
act of ours. * * * * If
Congress has no constitutional competency
to legislate one way or another—either
to introduce or prohibit slavery in the
Territories, a Territorial government has
no derivitive authority to do so from any
act which Congress can pass. Mr. Daw
son, of Georcia, says: “I am perfectly
willing to leave this subject to the Courts
under the constitution.” Gen. Cass says :
“ The power of the people to legislate
upon their internal concerns is clearly
given in this bill, if the constitution per
mits it. * * * If the Con
stitution does not permit it they have not
got it." Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, says:
‘•The’ bill provides that the legislatures of
these territories shall have the power to
legislate on all rightful subjects of legis
lation, subject to the Constitution of the
United Slates. And if they should as
sume powers inconsistent with the consti
tution the Courts will decide that question
wherever it may be raised." Mr. Douglas
himself in the very speech we ere review
ing admits that the friends of the hill
differed in regard " to the limitation im
posed by the constitution on the Territo
rial Legislature” and that “ this point
was referred to the Courts.”
I have now shown both from the face
of the bill itself, and the contemporaneous
interpretation of it by its leading suppor
ters that it was intended by it to refer the
question not to the people but to the
Courts. Since the passage of this bill,
the very point to which Judge Douglas
alludes as “ the only one referred to the
Courts,” and which he declares to be,
“ the extent of the limitation imposed
upon the Territorial Legislature by tho
constitution,” has been before the highest
Judicial tribunal known to our Laws.—
Here is its decision:
“ The powers over person and property
to which we refer are not only not granted
to Congress, but are in express terms de
nied, ahd they are forbidden to exercise
them. # # # # if
Congress cannot do this, it is beyond the
powers conferred on the Federal Govern
ment, it will be admitted, we presume, that
it could not authorize a Territorial Gov
ernment to exercise them. It could confer
no power on any local government estab
lished by its precisions to violate, the Con
stitution."
I am aware that Judge Douglas pro
poses to evade this by declaring that only
the judgement of the court is binding;
that what we have quoted is not germain
to the case before the court—that it is
oiitcr dicta and outside the jurisdiction of
the court; in a word that it is merely the
opinion of Citizen Taney and not of the
Chief Justice. Here, however, he comes
in direct conflict with the Chief Justice
and the recorded decision of the court;
for Judge Taney after disposing of the
demurer in that case, undertakes to go on
and decide it upon its facts and merits,
and, said he, in doing that, wt are met
WITH THE OBJECTION THAT ANYTHING
WE MAY SAY UPON THAT PART OF THE
CASE WILL BE EXTRA JUDICIAL AND OBI
TER dicta. This is a manifest mistake.
Thus, not Chief Justice Taney, but the
iirliriln OAIII-I (lilt liitn rlieonnlmiv uniona
' - --•/ "......D ”—"V
decided lhat it was not “obiter dictathat
it was exactly in point within the jurisdic
tion of the court, and lhat it was the duty
of the court to decide it. I believe it is
settled, in law, that a court is competent
to determine the extent of its own juris
diction/
But it was wholly unnecessary for Judge -
Douglas to resort to this disengenerous
quibble; for, although he says lhat “the ex
tent of the limitation imposed upon a Ter
ritorial legislature by the Constitution”
was referred, by the Kansas bill, “to the
courts,” and although the platform upon
which he was nominated declares it to be
“the true interpretation of the Cincinnati
platform,” that the measure of restriction
imposed by the Federal Government upon
the Territorial legislature shall be the sub
ject of judicial decision, and proposes to
abide by such decision of that question aa
has been, or may hereafter be made; yet,
in his celebrated Freeport speech.be avows
that “the people of a Territory may, by
lawful means, exclude slavery from tbeir
limits prior to the formation of a State
Constitution,” and that “no matter what
may be the decision of the Supreme Court
on that abstract question, still the right of
the people to make a slave Territory or a
free Territory is perfect and complete un
der the Nebraska bill. This is a repudi
ation of any decision of the Supreme Court
may make in regard to “the extent of the
limit imposed by the Constitution upon the
Territorial legislature,” when it conflicts
with the action of the legislature. It is
the extreme of folly to trust Judge Doug
las longer, when be tells us at one time
that “the extent of limitation imposed on
the Territorial legislature” was “referred
to the courts,” and at another, lhat “let
the decision of the Supreme Court on this
abstract question be what it may, still the
right of the people to make a slave Terri
tory or a free Territory is perfect and com
plete under the Kansas-Nebraska bill.”
I now propose to enquire what reason
there is to believe that the Cincinnati
Platform is based upon the idea of popu
lar sovereignty. Lawyers and jurists who
_• .L. I_L:» ..C __■_I_
U1U 114 UIV IIUUII w I I-U1WVIUIII0 IUHW
constitutions by the light of experience,
know that in order to decide what a law
of doubtful import means, you must look
at the cause of its enactment, the evil3 it
was designed to correct, and the remedy
it was designed to give. By the light of
this established rule of construction, let us
determine ".hat is tha meaning of the
Territorial branch of the Cincinnati plat
form. ^
First, then what was the subject matter
upon which it was based? It was the
right of the owner of slaves to emigrate
and settle and hold slaves in the Federal
Territories. Next, what was the cause
demandingthe passage of that resolution?
It was that the South was restless and
dissatisfied with the admission of Califor
nia under squatter sovereignty principles;
dissatisfied with the law forbidding the
internal slave-trade between citizens of
the slave States and the District of Colum
bia, und claimed perfect freedom to go
into any Federal Territory with their
slaves, and remain until forbidden by a
constitution constitutionally framed and
admitted into the union. The South
claimed the enactment of the platform for
her owu protection. It was not urged by
the Northern men for the utierance of
squatter sovereignly views. No such
power was urged them by any body, and
the South alone had that platform made,
and the cause of it was her need of pro
tection as a political question. Lastly,
what were the evils it was designed to