the writings-3-第25部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





To　this　Judge　Douglas　answered　that　they　can　lawfully　exclude

slavery　from　the　Territory　prior　to　the　formation　of　a

constitution。　　He　goes　on　to　tell　us　how　it　can　be　done。　　As　I

understand　him；　he　holds　that　it　can　be　done　by　the　Territorial

Legislature　refusing　to　make　any　enactments　for　the　protection　of

slavery　in　the　Territory；　and　especially　by　adopting　unfriendly

legislation　to　it。　　For　the　sake　of　clearness；　I　state　it　again：

that　they　can　exclude　slavery　from　the　Territory；　1st；　by

withholding　what　he　assumes　to　be　an　indispensable　assistance　to

it　in　the　way　of　legislation；　and；　2d；　by　unfriendly　legislation。

If　I　rightly　understand　him；　I　wish　to　ask　your　attention　for　a

while　to　his　position。



In　the　first　place；　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States　has

decided　that　any　Congressional　prohibition　of　slavery　in　the

Territories　is　unconstitutional；　that　they　have　reached　this

proposition　as　a　conclusion　from　their　former　proposition；　that

the　Constitution　of　the　United　States　expressly　recognizes

property　in　slaves；　and　from　that　other　Constitutional　provision；

that　no　person　shall　be　deprived　of　property　without　due　process

of　law。　　Hence　they　reach　the　conclusion　that　as　the　Constitution

of　the　United　States　expressly　recognizes　property　in　slaves；　and

prohibits　any　person　from　being　deprived　of　property　without　due

process　of　law；　to　pass　an　Act　of　Congress　by　which　a　man　who

owned　a　slave　on　one　side　of　a　line　would　be　deprived　of　him　if

he　took　him　on　the　other　side；　is　depriving　him　of　that　property

without　due　process　of　law。　　That　I　understand　to　be　the　decision

of　the　Supreme　Court。　　I　understand　also　that　Judge　Douglas

adheres　most　firmly　to　that　decision；　and　the　difficulty　is；　how

is　it　possible　for　any　power　to　exclude　slavery　from　the

Territory；　unless　in　violation　of　that　decision？　　That　is　the

difficulty。



In　the　Senate　of　the　United　States；　in　1850；　Judge　Trumbull；　in　a

speech　substantially；　if　not　directly；　put　the　same　interrogatory

to　Judge　Douglas；　as　to　whether　the　people　of　a　Territory　had　the

lawful　power　to　exclude　slavery　prior　to　the　formation　of　a

constitution。　　Judge　Douglas　then　answered　at　considerable

length；　and　his　answer　will　be　found　in　the　Congressiona1　Globe；

under　date　of　June　9th；　1856。　　The　Judge　said　that　whether　the

people　could　exclude　slavery　prior　to　the　formation　of　a

constitution　or　not　was　a　question　to　be　decided　by　the　Supreme

Court。　　He　put　that　proposition；　as　will　be　seen　by　the

Congressional　Globe；　in　a　variety　of　forms；　all　running　to　the

same　thing　in　substance；that　it　was　a　question　for　the　Supreme

Court。　　I　maintain　that　when　he　says；　after　the　Supreme　Court

have　decided　the　question；　that　the　people　may　yet　exclude

slavery　by　any　means　whatever；　he　does　virtually　say　that　it　is

not　a　question　for　the　Supreme　Court。　　He　shifts　his　ground。　　I

appeal　to　you　whether　he　did　not　say　it　was　a　question　for　the

Supreme　Court？　　Has　not　the　Supreme　Court　decided　that　question？

when　he　now　says　the　people　may　exclude　slavery；　does　he　not　make

it　a　question　for　the　people？　　Does　he　not　virtually　shift　his

ground　and　say　that　it　is　not　a　question　for　the　Court；　but　for

the　people？　　This　is　a　very　simple　proposition；a　very　plain　and

naked　one。　　It　seems　to　me　that　there　is　no　difficulty　in

deciding　it。　　In　a　variety　of　ways　he　said　that　it　was　a　question

for　the　Supreme　Court。　　He　did　not　stop　then　to　tell　us　that；

whatever　the　Supreme　Court　decides；　the　people　can　by　withholding

necessary　〃police　regulations〃　keep　slavery　out。　　He　did　not　make

any　such　answer　　I　submit　to　you　now　whether　the　new　state　of　the

case　has　not　induced　the　Judge　to　sheer　away　from　his　original

ground。　　Would　not　this　be　the　impression　of　every　fair…minded

man？



I　hold　that　the　proposition　that　slavery　cannot　enter　a　new

country　without　police　regulations　is　historically　false。　　It　is

not　true　at　all。　　I　hold　that　the　history　of　this　country　shows

that　the　institution　of　slavery　was　originally　planted　upon　this

continent　without　these　〃police　regulations；〃　which　the　Judge　now

thinks　necessary　for　the　actual　establishment　of　it。　　Not　only

so；　but　is　there　not　another　fact：　how　came　this　Dred　Scott

decision　to　be　made？　　It　was　made　upon　the　case　of　a　negro　being

taken　and　actually　held　in　slavery　in　Minnesota　Territory；

claiming　his　freedom　because　the　Act　of　Congress　prohibited　his

being　so　held　there。　　Will　the　Judge　pretend　that　Dred　Scott　was

not　held　there　without　police　regulations？　　There　is　at　least　one

matter　of　record　as　to　his　having　been　held　in　slavery　in　the

Territory；　not　only　without　police　regulations；　but　in　the　teeth

of　Congressional　legislation　supposed　to　be　valid　at　the　time。

This　shows　that　there　is　vigor　enough　in　slavery　to　plant　itself

in　a　new　country　even　against　unfriendly　legislation。　　It　takes

not　only　law；　but　the　enforcement　of　law　to　keep　it　out。　　That　is

the　history　of　this　country　upon　the　subject。



I　wish　to　ask　one　other　question。　　It　being　understood　that　the

Constitution　of　the　United　States　guarantees　property　in　slaves

in　the　Territories；　if　there　is　any　infringement　of　the　right　of

that　property；　would　not　the　United　States　courts；　organized　for

the　government　of　the　Territory；　apply　such　remedy　as　might　be

necessary　in　that　case？　　It　is　a　maxim　held　by　the　courts　that

there　is　no　wrong　without　its　remedy；　and　the　courts　have　a

remedy　for　whatever　is　acknowledged　and　treated　as　a　wrong。



Again：　I　will　ask　you；　my　friends；　if　you　were　elected　members　of

the　Legislature；　what　would　be　the　first　thing　you　would　have　to

do　before　entering　upon　your　duties？　　Swear　to　support　the

Constitution　of　the　United　States。　　Suppose　you　believe；　as　Judge

Douglas　does；　that　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States

guarantees　to　your　neighbor　the　right　to　hold　slaves　in　that

Territory；　that　they　are　his　property：　　how　can　you　clear　your

oaths　unless　you　give　him　such　legislation　as　is　necessary　to

enable　him　to　enjoy　that　property？　　What　do　you　understand　by

supporting　the　Constitution　of　a　State；　or　of　the　United　States？

Is　it　not　to　give　such　constitutional　helps　to　the　rights

established　by　that　Constitution　as　may　be　practically　needed？

Can　you；　if　you　swear　to　support　the　Constitution；　and　believe

that　the　Constitution　establishes　a　right；　clear　your　oath；

without　giving　it　support？　　Do　you　support　the　Constitution　if；

knowing　or　believing　there　is　a　right　established　under　it　which

needs　specific　legislation；　you　withhold　that　legislation？　　Do

you　not　violate　and　disregard　your　oath？　　I　can　conceive　of

nothing　plainer　in　the　world。　　There　can　be　nothing　in　the　words

〃support　the　Constitution；〃　if　you　may　run　counter　to　it　by

refusing　support　to　any　right　established　under　the　Constitution。

And　what　I　say　here　will　hold　with　still　more　force　against　the

Judge's　doctrine　of　〃unfriendly　legislation。〃　　How　could　you；

having　sworn　to　support　the　Constitution；　and　believing　it

guaranteed　the　right　to　hold　slaves　in　the　Territories；　assist　in

legislation　intended　to　defeat　that　right？　　That　would　be

violating　your　own　view　of　the　Constitution。　　Not　only　so；　but　if

you　were　to　do　so；　how　long　would　it　take　the　courts　to　hold　your

votes　unconstitutional　and　void？　　Not　a　moment。



Lastly；　I　would　ask：　Is　not　Congress　itself　under　obligation　to

give　legislative　support　to　any　right　that　is　established　under

the　United　States　Constitution？　　I　repeat　the　question：　Is　not

Congress　itself　bound　to　give　legislative　support　to　any　right

that　is　established　in　the　United　States　Constitution？　　A　member

of　Congress　swears　to　support　the　Constitution　of　the　United

States：　and　if　he　sees　a　right　established　by　that　Constitution

which　needs　specific　legislative　protection；　can　he　clear　his

oath　without　giving　that　protection？　　Let　me　ask　you　why　many　of

us　who　are　opposed　to　slavery　upon　principle　give　our

acquiescence　to　a　Fugitive　Slave　law？　　　Why　do　we　hold　ourselves

under　obligations　to　pass　such　a　law；　and　abide　by　it　when　it　is

passed？　　Because　the　Constitution　makes　provision　that　the　owners

of　slaves　shall　have　the　right　to　reclaim　them。　　It　gives　the

right　to　reclaim　slaves；　and　that　right　is；　as　Judge　Douglas

says；　a　barren　right；　unless　there　is　legislation　that　will

enforce　it。



The　mere　declaration；　〃No　person　held　to　service　or　labor　in　one

State　under　the　laws　thereof；　escaping　into　another；　shall　in

consequence　of　any　law　or　regulation　therein　be　discharged　from

such　service　or　labor；　but　shall　be　delivered　up　on　claim　of　the

party　to　whom　such　service　or　labor　may　be　due；　〃is　powerless

without　specific　legislation　to　enforce　it。〃　　Now；　on　what　ground

would　a　member　of　Congress；　who　is　opposed　to　slavery　in　the

abstract；　vote　for　a　Fugitive　law；　as　I　would　deem　it　my　duty　to

do？　　Because　there　is　a　constitutional　right　which　needs

legislation　to　enforce　it。　　And　although　it　is　distasteful　to　me；

I　have　sworn　to　support　the　Constitution；　and　having　so　sworn；　I

cannot　conceive　that　I　do　support　it　if　I　withhold　from　that

right　any　necessary　legislation　to　make　it　practical。　　And　if

that　is　true　in　regard　to　a　Fugitive　Slave　law；　is　the　right　to

have　fugitive　slaves　reclaimed　any　better　fixed　in　the

Constitution　than　the　right　to　hold　slaves　in　the　Territories？

For　this　decision　is　a　just　exposition　of　the　Constitution；　as

Judge　Douglas　thinks。　　Is　the　one　right　any　better　than　the

other？　　Is　there　any　man　who；　while　a　member　of　Congress；　would

give　support　to　the　one　any　more　than　the　other？　　If　I　wished　to

refuse　to　give　legislative　support　to　slave　property　in　the

Territories；　if　a　member　of　Congress；　I　could　not　do　it；　holding

the　view　that　the　Constitution　establishes　that　right。　　If　I　did

it　at　all；　it　would　be　because　I　deny　that　this　decision　properly

construes　the　Constitution。　　But　if　I　ackn