Daily Iowa State Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1856-1859, 1857-10-20
Lot Every Man Read It.

ders to an extract from speech re-
Gently made by John VanBuren in the
city Of New York. The construction
which Mr.. VanBurcn places upon the
celebrated passage in Mr.. Buchanan's
letter relating 10 the Constitution AMI
slavery is the same that Dem Gratis III
all parts Of the country long ago adop-
ted. How any reasonable man could
doubt the true intent and meaning OF
the passage alluded to has always been
70 us mystery, and we have never
had the least confidence in the fairness
of any journal or politician who pre-
tended to believe that Mr.. Buchanan
announced the doctrine that the Con
stitution carried slavery into every ter
ritory and State Of the Union. The
President said nothing which is sus-
ccptible Of any such Interpretation.
The words which the Black Kcpubli
cans most eagerly seized on and most
wickedly nisconstrucd arc the follow
ing: "lf confcdracy Of sovereign
states acquire new territory at the
expense Of their common blood and
treasure, surely one set Of the partners
can have no right to exclude the other
from its enjoyment by prohibiting them
from taking into it whatever is recog
nized rs property by a common conati-
tuition" Now, what does that mean
Does il, taken alone or in come ction
with the declaration that slavery exists
in Kansas under the Constiiu
ton and did so exist at the time of It's
ACQUISITION, mean that that institution
now flourishcs in Oregon or in Iowa! .
Certainly not. What, then, is its
meaning! lie had just been speaking
Of the decision of the Supreme Court
that Congress had no iegoi right to
prohibit slavery in the territories, and
after endorsing that adjrcation as "A
sound construction Of the Constitution,
he declares that besides being iiegai
it would be unfair, unjust, 'meqa'tadie,
to exclude our Southern partners from
the enjoyment Of property, which they
equally with ourselves labored 10 &C
quirc. To that every fair minded
must accede; and those considerations
present AN additional reason Why Cow
gress should not attempt to usurp III,
power of excluding slavery from The
territories. Mr.. VanBurcn luminously
says:
lie wished to say one word to them In rc
gard To the position assumed by Mr. Bu
chapan in his recent letter To the forty par
sons They recollccted that last Year th.r.
was an address to Congress 10y some 3oo
parsons, and he trusted TO TINT they would
agree with him, that it wa. a matter oicon
graduation that the number was now re'lu
ced to forty. Laughter. We had
come down in the Kansas excitement from
5000 10 40 Rev. Mr. Gulick and 1854
other parsons seemed TO have taken to other
business than having charge of kansas -
Laughter Forty men, in their address ''
President Buchanan. took him To task Ion
the course lac had seen lit to pursue IN re-
gard to Kansas affairs, and he replied To then
in a letter which, though brief, was as coi
elusive and unansw cradle in his CHR. Nat'
Burens) Judgment, rs any production TIA
had fallen from any sta estnan during th'
present century Cheers. There was bu
a single seniance in it that had excite,
special remark, and that one had been ia,
subject of extended commentary in lsepubli
can addresses in all their newspapers, an,
in the canvass on the stump III, oughont th'
State and all the free States. Mr.. buchanan
in writing to them, said The Congress
Of the United States had most wisely dccla
red il TO be the true intent aud meaning .
this act-the act organizing the TERRITORY -
not to legislate slavery into any territory
nor to exclude il therefrom, but TO leave l
to the people thereof, perfectly free To 'orn
and regulate their domestic institutions II
their own way, subject only to the tons'itu
ton Of the United States. As n natural con
sequence Congress has also prescribed by
th. same act that when the Territory q
Kansas shall he admitted as u State 1t shal
be received into the Union with or without
Slavery as its constitution may prescribe
at the time Of It's admission. Slavery eN
listed at that period and still exists in Nan
sas under the Constitution OF the nitet
States" Now. that was unquesiionnbi,
true. Il was by no means statement, ~ II
was claimed by the Republicans. that Slave
nv existed under the Constitution OF all tho
Territories of the United Sintes, 40 matter
whether they were free or slaveholdins
when they were acquired but 1t was 1
abatement that slavery ex sted in Kansas,
slayeholding Territory under the Constitu
ton Of the United States, at the time 1t Wa
acquired. and it still does exist. Why
This point has at last been decided by The
highest tribunal known to our laws. How
\ could ever have been seriously doubted i
mystery. liza confederation of sovereign
states acquired new Territory at the ex
nense Of their common blood and treasurer
surely one set Of the partners can have n,
right 10 exclude the other from its enjoy
ment bv prohibiting them from taking int
il whatsoever is recognized to be ropert,
by common con, titution. But when th'
people. the bona fde residents Of such Terri
tory proceed to frame State Constitution
then Il is their right to decide the importan
question themselves. whether they will con
tsnue, modify or abolish slavery. To them
and to them alone, does this question belong
free from all foreign interference. Iha
was the decision Of the Supreme Court o
the United States. that Congress had n
power to prohibit Slavery in the Terriiorie'
Of the United States. That was the supreme
laws Of the land What Repui lican coult
change itY How was he to go to work Il
doits What expectation was there t.
change the Supreme Court of the United
States. standing seven to two upon tina,
question, and one 0thc two. Judge Curtis
having resigned since that timer Deciding
eight TO one they said that Kansas was
slaveholding Territory. 1t was a part o
Louisiana, and nobody pretended that Slave
~ had been abolished in Louisiana, or il
Florida. They were all slaveholding whei
Il got them, and under the Constitution, Iii,
mot become free, but remained slaveholdin.
till that was forbidden 10y Congress and tn
Supreme Court had decided that Congress
had NO such power. and they had a right t
decide. That decision differed from his ow