The Council Bluffs nonpareil. [volume] (Council Bluffs [Iowa]) 1857-1867, 1857-11-28

slssAss Lsv-aen.a cssss P~pssss.
In dsys q ysrs, Ds.esatls poaisisa
and josssals. wsrswsue 70 ssnneat n terri
Of holy lessor, upea shas ny usrs pisassl
to tar the sshighw law-isA" = Governsl
SswAas. No Language was snsisatly =
prssivs, in which 10 utter their pious con.
dsnnasions Of H. sshishsr law'' doctrine
- IL allagsa advocate. Politics, howsv~,
aswell spovssty, nAksss trangs bsd-fsllows
and il u thsesfors NOT surprising at thil
lats-day, 70 end Democratic politicians ID
vocatins tAe most ultra sshighsr law" doc.
trinss. ssNstional Democracy" il evidently
progressive. Az : sample Of Democratic
sshigher Law, ''ws annex the preamble Of til
Slave Clause in the Constitution Of Kansas
Here 10 the precious moroccan:
| spresnble -rMR AloHTs or PAoPERTY ABE Be
ronE AHD uloHEA THAN ANY CousTITuTIoHAl
SANCTION, s.A The rishts q ne ewnsr Of slavc
such slavo it, Increase 10 the same and - nvtoa
BILE ~ the rights Of the owners Of any prepsrty !"
Here the ssHigher Law" doctrine is boldly
proclaimed. Now read the doctrine adyo-
Gated by General Cas-, and supported BY
the whole Democratic party Of the North,
President BUCHANAN included, during the
Presidential election Of 1856:
slayery IL the creature Of local law and can claim
neither protection. sss:se.es nor 70 ti T.
Kansas while 1t remains Territory Ths Constitution
neither protects nor recogstsss Slavery In the Terrific
| RES"
General CAss here asserts unequivocally,
that ssSlavery 10 the creature Of LOCAL Law,
and therefore not ssbefore and higher than
any Constitutional sanction" Here it ID
also distinctly stated that Slavery "does moi
and cannot exist in Kansas while it remains
q Territory" Mr.. BUCHANAN now opposes
this doctrine. Read what he said in his
letter to Professor SULLIVAN, dated August,
Is, 1857: alT 8s- 81
"Sisvery essfe6 ct tAss pertod. THE time when the
act Organizing the Territory passed sSd sH essfs
{. Ksnsss, ssSsr the Constellation Of tie Usafed
Ststes." . H
Now, which is the Democratic doctrine
Is the right to hold slaves before and higher
than any Constitutional sanction? Is Slave
~ the creature of local law?-and il 20, can
it exist in Kansas, while it remains Terri
torys Does Slavery exist in Kansas BY vir-
tue of the Constitution of the United States?
Mr.. BUCHANAN says it does, and Mr.. CAss
maintains quite the contrary. Which are
We to believe? Mr.. BUCHANAN further says:
srf confederation Of Sovereign States acquire new
Ter at the expense Of their common blood and
treasure surely one act Of parssrs have no gnf to
thsm from taEins into II Whatsoever is recognised q
property BY Q common Consftfsfton." y -f
This is not new doctrine, it has always
been maintained BY the advocates Of Slavery.
In 1S4S, tho great "Expounder Of the Con-
stitution," DANIEL WEBSTER, answered this
argument fully. Pending the debate on the
oregon Bill, he said-"Gentlemen declare
that we invade their rights-that we deprive
them of participation in the enjoyment of
territories acquired by the common services
and common exertions of all. Is this true?
How deprived? OF what do We deprive
them9 Why, they say that we deprive them
of the privilege of carrying their slaves, as
slaves. into the new territories. Well, Sir,
what is the amount of that? They say that
in this way we deprive them of the opportu-
nifty of going into this acquired territory
with their property. Their ''property9"-
what do they mean by that? We certainly
do not deprive them of the privilege of 60
ing into these newly acquired territories
with all that, in the general estimate of hu-
man society, in the general and common and
universal understanding of mankind, is es-
teemed property. Not at all. The truth is
just this: They have in their own States Pc
culiar laws, which create property in persons.
They have system Of local legislation on
which slavery rests; while every body agrees
that it is against natural law, or at least
against the common understanding which
prevails as to what is natural law.
The Southern States have peculiar laws,
and by those laws there is property in slaves.
This is purely local. The real meaning,
then, of Southern gentlemen, in making this
complaint, is that they cannot 60 into the
territories of the United States carrying with
them their own peculiar lava law which
creates property in persons. . . 1t
will not be contended that this sort of per-
sonal slavery exists by general law. 1t ex-
lists only by local law. And
wherever that local law does not extend,
property in persons does not exist. Well, Sir,
what is now the demand on the part Of our
Southern friends? They say, owe will car
ry our local laws with US wherever We 60.
We insist that Congress Goes US injustice
unless it establishes in the territory in which
we wish to 60, our own local law" This
demand ], for one, resist, and shall resist.
. There is, then, no exclusion
Of Southern people; there is only the erclu-
sion Of peculiar local ldp. Neither in
principle nor in fact is there any inequality"
In the Sauae Beat.