友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!
the writings-3-第35部分
快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完,想下次继续接着阅读,可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能!
answer as many interrogatories for me as I did for him; and I
would reserve myself for a future instalment when I got them
ready。 The Judge; in answering me upon that occasion; put in
what I suppose he intends as answers to all four of my
interrogatories。 The first one of these interrogatories I have
before me; and it is in these words:
〃Question 1。If the people of Kansas shall; by means entirely
unobjectionable in all other respects; adopt a State
constitution; and ask admission into the Union under it; before
they have the requisite number of inhabitants according to the
English bill; 〃…some ninety…three thousand;…〃 will you vote to
admit them?〃
As I read the Judge's answer in the newspaper; and as I remember
it as pronounced at the time; he does not give any answer which
is equivalent to yes or no;I will or I won't。 He answers at
very considerable length; rather quarreling with me for asking
the question; and insisting that Judge Trumbull had done
something that I ought to say something about; and finally
getting out such statements as induce me to infer that he means
to be understood he will; in that supposed case; vote for the
admission of Kansas。 I only bring this forward now for the
purpose of saying that if he chooses to put a different
construction upon his answer; he may do it。 But if he does not;
I shall from this time forward assume that he will vote for the
admission of Kansas in disregard of the English bill。 He has the
right to remove any misunderstanding I may have。 I only mention
it now; that I may hereafter assume this to be the true
construction of his answer; if he does not now choose to correct
me。
The second interrogatory that I propounded to him was this:
〃Question 2。Can the people of a United States Territory; in any
lawful way; against the wish of any citizen of the United States;
exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State
Constitution?〃
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 wi
快捷操作: 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!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!