The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1858-09-23
The Civilian on Congressional sove.

The Civilian on Congressional Sove-
ssaa ,s..e - reignt-.
Ger Our neighbor has sort of reply,
in his last weeks issue, to previous ar
ticlc of our, own, in reference to the doc
trine of Congressional Sovereignty over
the Territories. There is but little in it
worthy ofnctice, even five had the space
the present week to answer it, which we
have not. He says that he never denied
that The Democratic party have departed
from the its old established policy in re-
gard to Congressional Sovereignty over
the Territories. Very well, then, there
is no necessity to argue that point any
more. However, Democrats are wont to
boast that they have by their former poll
icy, raised the country to its present glo-
rious position. Will the CIVILIAN show
us the necessity for abandoning that pol
icy if it has been thus fruitful of great
results !? Show us, if you please, the SUI
periority of the doctrines and policy of
JAMES BUCHANAN or STEPHEN A. DoUG-
LAS, over that of THOMAS JEFFERSON and
JAMES MADISON, and tell us what greater
results you expect to achieve by the new
than by the old policy. - s ~
He says the policy Of the Democratic
party is, to leave the subject of slavery in
the Territories to the Territorial Legisla-
lures. Mr.. BUCHANAN, and the Supreme
Court says that the Territorial Legisla-
lures have no right TO touch the subject,
as he will perceive, by reading the ex-.
tracts which we have given in connection
with Mr.. VASDEvER's Speech. Mr.
DOUGLAS, himself, acknowledges the
same thing, but says that the people can
prevent lis existence by refusing to pass
laws for its proteclion-thus abolishine
it indirectly by voluntary neglect But
even this. prop is knocked from under the
doctrine, by the following declaration of
the Supreme Court: aa hr .tseb
"And if the Constitution recognizes
the right of property of the master in a
slave, and makes no distinction between
that description of property and other
property owned by a citizen, no tribunal,
acting under the authority of the United
States, whether LEGISLATIVE Exec
utive or judicial, has a right to draw
such distinction, or DENY to it the
benefit Of the provisions and guarantees
which have been provided for the pro-
lection OF private property against the
encroachmen of Government"
And the Richmond Enquirer and 9TH
err papers of the South are calling upon
Congress to pass civil and criminal
code for the protection of slave property
in the Territories. What, then becomes of
your worshipped dogma of squatter Sow
ereignty? Sob aH pgy t9..,- s.s3.
The Civilian denies that all statesmen
of the country had endorsed The right of
Congress TO legislate for the Territories,
and in proof introduces the following res
olution passed by Congress in 1888, t.a
Respleed. That an attempt of Congress
to abolish slavery in any Territory Of the
United States in which it exists, would
create serious alarm and just apprehen-
sion in the States sustaining that domes- I
tic institution, and would be violation
of good faith towards the inhabitants of
any such Territory who have been per-
mitted to settle with and hold slaves
therein DC. Ai4 lisseHiE tsfh7 81
Does this deny the power of Congress
to abolish slavery By no means. 1t
only asserts, that to do so in the Terrific
ries where slavery then existed, would
be a violation Of good faith towards their
inhabitants. In all the Territories where
slavery then existed, it was there by vir-
tue of express stipulations made by Con-
gress when the Territory was ceded.-l
Congress had agreed not to interfere with
SIdNCiJ WHcH ~ WIS CcQeQ, anu
to have done so, would have been, as this
resolution says, q violation ofgood faith
towards the inhabitants, because itwould !
have been a violation of contract. There's
olution did notrelate to the power of Com
gress over the Territory, but relates to.
the justice of performing an act which
Congress had once agreed not to per-
form, Slavery existed in Florida before
its cessjon by Spain, and the rights of
as existing under that govern,
ment, were guaranteed by Congress at
the time oftbe cession. To abolish those
rights ofqwoperty would therefore be an
act of bad faith, and was So pronounced
in this'resolution.K 1T proves nothing for
the Cqoilian's position, and no quotation
thatit has made, throughout. this whole
CONTROVERSY, has proved anything for it,
NoknoMs this. and finding it has the
wrong side of the question shirks out of