St. Charles City Republican intelligencer. [volume] (St. Charles City [Charles City], Iowa) 1857-1861, 1858-03-04
PRICE, TWO DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
NUMBER 2l.

| if it could be thus effected; and if not,
then by strategy and if not in this
way, then by open force, to be used
by the President in the appointments
of the army. Hence it is that the
people of that Territory have been de-
prived of the right of voting, of excr-
cising this mere negative power of re-
fusing their assent to the Lccompton
Constitution. And, although the
Northern Democracy are now on their
knees, begging the privilege for their
brethren i'll Kansas to vote for or
against their fundamental laws, they
are destined to experience the deep
humiliation of denial.
But this is not the end of the humili-
alton the Northern Democracy is des-
tined to sutfer-and that right speed
ily-at the hand of their Southern
allies. They will be required to yield
their Interpretation of the kansas-Ne-
braska bill in its whole length and
breadth.
The Democracy of the North claim
it to be the true intent and meaning
OF the Kansas bill, that the people of
| OF the Territories may either exclude
or establish slavery, at their own dis
cretion. Not SO with the Democracy
of the South. They claim that the
title to slave property must be placed
on the same footing with the title to
other species of property. They claim
it to have been thus decided by the
judges of the Supreme Court in the
Dred Scott case, in which Justice
Daniels says:
The only private property which
the Constitution has specifically recog-
nlsed, and has imposed it as direct
obligation, both on the States and
Federal Government, to protect and
enforce, is the property of the master
In his slave; no other right of proper
ty is placed by the Constitution upon
the same high grounds, nor shielded
by a similar guarantee"
They do not admit that the people
OF the Territory can at any time vote
slavery from its limits, either pre-
ceding or at the time of the formation
of State Constitution. They claim
that the title to slave property is like
the title to all other property-that
for this the same footing shall be
yielded that Free State men claim for
their property. Again, they claim it
to be violation of their constitution
al right, not to allow them with their
slaves an equal enjoyment of the
public domain, purchased with the
common blood and treasure of the ma
tion. Grant thclatter proposition and
slavery will be carried by into Iowa
as readily as into the Territories. BY
this assumption, you carry slavery in
to Illinois, you carry it into Mnneso-
ia, you carry it into Wisconsin, YOU
take it into every State of the Union
in which there is one foot of the public
domain. The principle will hold good
for an acre that will hold good for
fifty million of acres.
This principle is clearly announced
in the Lecompton Constitution that
the right Of property is before and
higher than any constitutional sane
ton and the right of the owner of u
slave to such slave and its increase,
is the same and is as inviolable as
the right of the owner of any property
whatever"
Is. that assented to by statesmen
from the Southern States, or do they
deny it The argument is rung in
our ears day by day, not only Oh the
floor of Congress, but by the ncwspa-
per press throughout the South, that
the title to slave property is like the
title to all other property-that it is
superior to Constitutions and laws;
because, as they would lead us to be-
lieve, it has its foundation in a consti-
tutional principle-not in a constitu-
tional Observation-Disclosures it has it's
foundation in principle of the human
mind itself.
The Northern Democracy aud the
Republicans differ as widely as the
poles. The Republicans maintain that
there can be no such thing as property
held and enjoyed by a human being
so as to vitiate or annihilate tho
rights Of person, and that the rights
of property are valid only so far as
they can be held and enjoyed consis-
tently with the enjoyment of the
rights of person. Hence they come
to the conclusion that no vote, either
by large or small communities, can
make slavery right or wrong. If
slavery is in itself wrong, if the title
be bad title, no number of votes can
ever make it good, because its right
fulness or wrongfulaess depends on an
original principle, constitutional
right, which cannot be thus created or
thus annihilatcd. 1t thus occupies
the same basis side by side with tho
right of life. Who pretends if one
man sacrifices, without cause, the life
Of another, and all his neighbors, by
their votes, approve the act, it will
change the legal character Of the
murder? 1t only makes the partici-
pants parties to the crime. IT they
lend their assent in advance, they are
partseeps eriminis in advance. 1t they
lend their sanction after its commission,
they are parties to the crime after the
act. If slavery is right, no people
have a right to annihilate it by q vote;
if it is wrong, it can not be made
right by vote. Such an assumption
was turned into ridicule three thou
sand years ago by the Greek general,
who, when told by his countrymen
that they had just had an election, at
which they had created ten generals,
responded "Why did not the people
at the same time vote their donkeys
into horses, and enrich the State 2"
It involves an absurdity on its very
face.
There is no necessity for the free
men of the North to hold men, women
and children, as property. They have
been able thus far to manage all their
domestic affairs without buyin" and