The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1858-09-30

thing recognized as property-that the
right to abolish property in anything
does not rest in Congress-and therefore
no tribunal acting under its authority,
whether Legislative, executive. or judicial,
can possess such power. While the ter
ritory exists, there is no power, under
this decision, to abolish Slavery therein.
Mr.. BUCHANAN so understands the deci-.
sion, and deems it just and proper. He
says:
If a confederation of sovereign states
acquire new territory at the expense of
their common blood and treasure, surely
one set of the parties can have no right
to exclude the other from its enjoyment
by prohibiting them from taking into it
whatever is recognized to be property BY
common constitution. But when the
people-the bona fide residents Of such
.territory-proceed to form State Consti-
tuition, then is it their right to decide the
important question ior themselves, wheth-
er they will continue, modify, or abolish
slavery"
Mr.. LEFFINGwELL endorses bred Scott
and JAMES BUCHANAN, and must and does
endorse this view of popular sovereignty
and, democrats of Buchanan county, in
no sense do you vote to allow the people
Of territory to regulate the institution
OF slavery for themselves, by voting for
Mr.. LEFF1NewELL. Mr. Douglas him
selfadmits that the only way to keep it out
of the territories is for the people to re-
fuse to pass laws regulating it. But Mr..
Douglas forgot that the Supreme Court
says that no tribunal acting under the
authority of Congress, has right to
draw distinction between Slave and
other property. cor DENY to it the ben
EFT of the provisions. and guarantees
which have been provided for the protec-
ton of private property against the en-
croachments of government" Douglas
method will not answer, therefore. You
must protect slave property, as you do
other property. Already the South is
calling upon Congress to pass Slave
Code for the territories, fearful that the
people will not fulfil this requirement.
This will become an issue, and where
Will Mr.. LEFFINGwELL stand +? He en-
dorses the bred Scott decision, and that
tells him he cannot deny this protection !;
he goes with Mr.. BUCHANAN, and he
says what the constitution recognizes as
property must be protected. Does any
man, then, doubt that WIN. +. LETTING
WELL would, instead of voting to allow
the people of the territories to establish
or abolish slavery as they saw fit, give
his influence to the administration to
force upon them Slave Code ?
Democrats, do not be gulled any more
by this Popular Sovereignty pretence. 1t
is abandoned by the whole South, by
the Administration, and by all the lead
ers of the party North. If ninety nine
out of every hundred people in terrific
ry weraaGerse to slavery, they will have
no power. under Democratic admins
tration, to prevent its establishment there,
and when once established, you know
how difficult it is to abolish it. Mr.. b.
cHANAN, in his special message on the
Lecompton constitution, said that after
the shareholders had taken their property
into Kansas under the guarantees of the
constitution, it would be manifest inius-
tice, and contrary to the practice of the
older states, if the right to that property
was abolished without just compensa-
ton. And thus, in order to form free
constitution, the people will be compelled
to remunerate the STAKEHOLDER who forces
himself among them in defiance Of their
wishes. Thus will difficulties be thrown
in the way of forming free constitution,
and slavery will increase its extent and
power. In voting for VIM. E. LETTING
WELL, you vote for this result. This is
the inevitable tendency of the new doc
trine Of the Democratic party. Why not
come back to the old policy of JErFER-
SON, as advocated by Mr.. VASpEvER and
the Republican party-a policy which
you have heretofore supported, and the
result of which is to make the govern
ment subserve the interests of freedom,
and not the perpetuation of the odious
system of human slavery?
Voting.
E1- The inquiry will probably arise
in some minds, as to whether it will be
proper to vote for State, District, County,
and Township Officers all upon the same
ballot, or whether there should be separ-
| ate ballots for each class of of1icars Tho