■ __ | .. . . | |||||m jm\ f. raj i> Jtfi 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