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!
恐怖书库 返回本书目录 加入书签 我的书架 我的书签 TXT全本下载 『收藏到我的浏览器』

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
返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0
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!