Daily Iowa State Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1856-1859, 1858-09-09

any citizen OF the United States, exclude
slaoery from its limits prior to the formation
of a State COnStitutiouf
ANSWER MADE By Mr.. DOUGLAS.
The next question Mr.. Lincoln, PROFOUND
ed to me is: 90 Can tie people Of Territory
exclude slavery from their limits by any
legal means, before 1t comes into tie Union
as State ?" answer emphatically, as Mr.
Lincoln has heard me answer hundred
times. on every stump in Illinois, that IN ma
opinion the people ofa Territory can, by law
full means, ercl4de Slarery before it comes IN
as a State. Cheers. Mr.. Lincoln knew
that had given that answer over and over
agVin. He heard me argue the Nebraska
Bill on that principle all over the State, in
1854, '55, and Sc, and he has row no ex-
cuse to pretend to have any doubt upon the
subject. Whatever the Supreme Court may
hereafter decide as to the abstract question Of
uhether Slaverg may go an under the Consti
tuition or not, the people of a Territory hare
the fa@fM means to admit or exclude 1t as
they please, for the reason that Slavery can
not exist day or an hour anywhere, unless
supported by local police regulations, fur
nishing rem edies aud means of enforcing the
right to hold slaves. Those local and police
regulations can only be furnished by the le-
gal legislature. If the people of the Terri
tory are opposed they will elect
members to the Legislature who will
adopt unfriendly Legislation to it
If they are for it, they will adopt legislative
measures friendly to slavery. Hence, No
MATTER WHAT MAY BIZ THE DECISION OF THE ST.
PREME CoURr on that abstract question, still
the right Of the people to make it a Siave
Territory or Free Territory is perfect and
complete under the Nebraska JiH hope
MIR. Lincoln will deem my answer satisfac-
tory on that point.
The foregoing is taken from the report Of
Douglas speech, as found in the Psess and
Tribune, and ought to be sufficient to put to
blush the slanderous Black Republican
journals, who persistently misrepresent the
doctrines of popular sovereignty as adopted
by the Democratic party. The Davenport
Gdzette,-with the habitual penchant for
misrepresentation-has, times without num-
Der, stated that Judge Leffingwell would
consider the English bill fnality, when
Judge Lefingwell has repeated IS often as
ne has spoken, that he would have
voted against that bill if he had been
in Congress. and further, that he was in fa-
vor of allowing the people of Kansas full
Constitutional liberty in making their own
laws Judge Lefingwell has repeatedly
said that he was in favor Of admitting Kan
sas into the Union ss State at any time,
under Constitution that should be legally
adopted by the people. He further holds
to the doctrine that the people of territory
have right by law. to adopt or exclude
slavery as they may see fit, and that the
Dred Scott decision means this and no more
That in all the territories, ,Olere slavery is
not expressly e1clsded BY some local lav. 1t Is
the right Of the people to oacn and hold slavss'
But who does not zee the utter impossibility
of sustaining the Constitution ofslavery inl
State or territory without some positive
law to protect and regulate the system p
Therefore it is an established democratic
doctrine, in perfect harmony with the Dred
Scott decision, that under the Constitution
the United States, the people Of . terri
tory have the right to hold slaves, If they
cen conveniently y until some positive ter.
ritorial Law shall forbid Il
This n Jadss Ls@ngwslls spinisa. This
= ~ spiaisa < asmssrstA r tAses1ues