The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1856-11-01
From the Bureau County Democrat.
Duan's Bill Who are the Slavery Ex.
fensioniSts? Y

Duan's Blu-Who are the slavery Ell
tensionists7 ~
The following provisions in Dams
Bill should not be forgei10 by those who
object TO slavery and slavery extension
n.i,her should it be fMgo,en thu,
EVERY REPUBLICAN, MEM Der
OF CONGRESS. excep. Letter Of Ohio,
VOTED FOR THE BILL:
provided, however. that any person
lawfully held to service in ethel OF the
said territories Kansas and Nebraska
shall not be discharged from such service
by virtue Of such repeal and revival Of
said eigth section, if such person shall
be permanently removed from such terri
tory or territories prior to the FIRST Of
January, eighteen hundred and fifty.
eight; and any child or children born in
either Of said territories Of any female
lawfully held to service, If in like man.
ner removed without said territory be-
fore the expiration Of that date, shall no,
be by reason cf any thing IN this act,
emancipated from any service it nigh,
have owed had this act never been PASS
ed.
Sand provided. further, that any per.
son lartaiiy held to service in any other
State or Territory Of the United States
and escaping into either the Territories o.
Kansas or \ ebraskn, may be RECLAIMED
and removed TO the person or place vhere
such service IS due under any lao Of ihe
United States wh,ch shall be in force up.
on the subject"
Had the above passed the Senate, or
had the Senate been "Repubilcan" like
the House, it might have become the law
of the land, and slavery have been legis.
late d, directly, by Congress into the ter.
ritory Of Kansas and Nebraska.
A Drownding Man will Ca'ch at a
Straw.
The above Article and Provision OF
the Dunn's Bill have been going the
rounds for sometime. The Democrat,
have complained tina, they have no, been
able to fisd Republican who could ans
wer to the Inconsistencies involved in it.
They assert that, had il become a law,
slavery would have been, by Congress,
Legisla,ed directly into Kansas. We
are surprised that persons, making any
pretensions whatever to common sense,
would Come out and make such an as
ser.ion We ask, has the Republicans,
as party. ever undertaken to informed.
die with slavery in the States where j,
already e,i lists by law; and have they
not always declared that Congress had
the right 10 Legisla,e on slavery in the
territories. Now we ask for q common
sense look into this question. for i, rs
certainly common sense language, and
canno, be misunderstood by any person
Of common sense.
Provided, however, that any person
lawfully held TO service in either of SAID
territories Kansas and Nebraska, shall
no, be discharged from such services, by
reason oil such repeal and revival Of said
eighth section, if such person shall be re.
moved from such territory or teIri,orie.
prior to the first Gay Of JAN, 1858. Is
it }, plain that it means simply this, and
that ii says it in plain language, that this
act is no, 10 interfere with the rights oil
others property but, that if slavery did
then exis, there by law, the owners OF
those slaves were to hare two years in
which to take them away, and if nc,
taken away at the expiration Of that time
they would then by virtue of law become
free. We ask, what language could be
used or what term TO make it palmer
It seems to US, that no school boy could
fail to understand ii. And in the same
provision, i. made further: and any child
or children born IN either OF said terrific.
ries OF any female lawfully held to SER
vice, in like manner removed without
said territory, before the expiration OF
this date, shall not be by reason Of any
thing IN this act, emancipated from any
service it nigh; have owed, had this &C,
never been passed.
Nov, we want our readers TO look and
think. Is not this par, Of the provision
precisely the same as the other. The
design shall no, interfere with the rights
of property bu, where children were
born OF slave parents their owners would
have time to remove them before the
date above mentioned. 10 wit: Jan.
lst, A. d., 1855; and If net removed by
that time, they by this act become free.
The above provision has been grea,
bug-bear, and awfully mysterious. to the
poor ignorant democracy, they ought to
be ashamed 10 let the world know that
they have no more brains tina they are
so profoundly ignorant. Who is there,
We ask, that does net know that the
Dunn's Bill was bill introduced before
Congress for the aGn ission OF Kansas as
a free Stale. and who (hnt an irnor