St. Charles City Republican intelligencer. [volume] (St. Charles City [Charles City], Iowa) 1857-1861, 1858-09-02

powers are derived from the people
and not from Congress. Nor is there
any limit to their powers of domestic
Legislation, and they may exercise all
that the people of State through
their Legislatures may exercise. The
Constitution makes no distinction be-
tween property in slaves or property
in anything else, and the Legislature
Of Territory may regulate property
in slaves or it may abolish it altogeth-
er, or by the same rule it may estab-
lish it.
But in exercising any Of these
powers it derives none Of them from
Congress, for Congress never pos
sessed the powers Of domestic legisla.
ton, and of course cannot confer them
upon Territorial Legislature. But,
you ask, how do the people obtain this
power of domestic legislation-or, in
other words, selfgovernment?
answer, that when by success
full revolution the founders of this gov
eminent absolved themselves from all
allegiance to the British crown, the
people of the colonies became possess
ed Of all the powers of government.
Had they felt disposed, they could
have set up any form of government
they chose, or they could have re-
manned independent sovereign States.
But they chose to establish the Amer
lean Constitution, and in doing so,
they reserved to themselves and their
posterity the rights of domestic legis-
lation. First, then, the people Of the
United States derived the power to
govern themselves from revolution /;
secondly, it is their birth-right, and
certainly they still possess what they
have never parted with.
But let us look for moment at the
doctrine of Congressional sovereignty,
which is advocated by the Republican
candidate, and is cnunciated by the
Republican platform. They declare
that Congress possesses sovereign
power over the Territories for their
government, and contend that Con-
gress not only possesses the right of
domestic legislation, but should exer-
else it.
I Now as all conccde that Congress
can exercise no power or right which
is not conferred upon it by the Con
stitution, and as this will not be de-
MED, even by Mr. Vandever, l make
this proposition, that if the Constitu
ton does not expressly give to Con.
gress the power to legislate for the
domestic affairs of the Territories,
then Congress cannot exercise that
power. Now have asked Mr.. Van.
dever time and time again to point out
that clause or those clauses in the
Constitution from which Congress de
rives the power to legislatc over the
domestic affairs of the people of the
Territories. Aud he has answered my
call by silence. Again ask him t.
do it to-day, to show you, fcllow-citi
zens, how and where Congress obtainl
this sovereign power which he claim:
for it. But he cannot do it becaus,
the Constitution confers no such power
Then he claims for Congress an un
constitutional power, and advocates
the violation of both the right of tn,
people to domestic Legislation and tn,
Constitution Of the General Govern
ment.
But Mr.. Vandevcr says that Popu
lar Sovereignty is humbug and that
the democratic party are making q
. hollow pretence in advocating it, and
at the same time endorsing the Dret
, Scott decision.
He observation-disclosures 5raleny- tho
all the Territories and fixes it there
beyond any power, except State gov
ernment, to remove it.
This assertion is false, as any mar
can see who will take the trouble te
examine the decision for himself. The
bred Scott decision does not contain
a single word conflicting with the
doctrine Of Popular Sovereignty, ant
Mr.. Vandever not only garbles the dc.
cision, but misrepresents it. But on
the contrary the decision in express
words advises Congress to confer
Popular Sovereignty upon the people
of Territory which they declare al
ready possesses the right to its exer.
else.
The bred Scott decision is designed
to show that Congress does not pos
scss the power to legislate over the
domestic affairs of the people of the
Territories, and cannot enact restrict.
i've laws, but it enunciates no such
sentiment as Mr.. Vandever asserts.
The people of territory have no
voice or vote in Congress, and al
though my competitor claims that the
power of governing the Territories is
vested in Congress, claim that it is
lodged in the people. The Constitu-
ton is the protection of the people,
and Congress cannot overstep the
bounds it imposes.
Mr.. Vandever thinks the bred Scott
decision is milestone about my neck
which is dragging me and my party
down to the bottomless abyss. He
boasts of the strength of Republican.
ism in this district, and no doubt fan.
cies himself to be it's great Goliah
But let him beware lest Popular
Sovereignty" pebble in the hand of
even SO humble David as myself may
yet hit him bat on the head and all
his strength and greatness totter and
fall. Most assurcdly, gentlemen, III
beat him, If get votes enough; and
| hope in such an event he will quiet
ly submit--as intend to do, without
murmur or complaint, if he beats
me.
Now, there is the doctrine of negro
equality of which my Republican
friends prate SO much, merely to catch
votes. They do not believe what they
profess. Why, gentlemen, the ques-
ton was put to them in this State last
year when voting upon the adoption
Of the Constitution, and they voted by
more than forty thousand majority
that the negro should not exercise the
right of suffrage. In New York Mig
pera NAV vote If thev have proyDrfv