The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1858-09-23


owed, the opinion of the Supreme Court
upon this question. But let us 90 back
10 the language of the Kansas Nebraska
bill itself. That bin declares il 10 be
I" the tue intent and meaning Of this acl
not to legislate Slavery into the Territory
nor to exclude it therefrom but to leave
1-the people thereof perfectly free to form
and regulate their domestic institutions in
their own way. subject only TO the con-
stitution of the United States" Docs
the language used here. form and reg
ulate imply the right to abolish He
thought not. The people of the territory
have the right to form laws regulating
| property in horses, cattle or lands, but
1t will not be commended that they had
the right to abolish property in these ar
ticles. 1t was contended that slaves were
property under the constitution much
SO as any other property-and if this
power to form and regulate gave no
power to abolish the right of property in
animals, how could it in slaves. when
they were held to be upon par by the
operation of the Constitution =? That
there was no intention TO convey this pow
er, Is evident from the fact that when
Senator CHASE offered an amendment to
the bill, to the effect that the people Of
the territory should have the right to
abolish Slavery, if they deemed proper to
DO SO, it was voted down by the friends
of the bill. Mr.. BUCHANAN, in his first
message to Congress, treating upon the
subject of Slavery in Kansas, says:
Z" These slaves were brought into the
territory under the constitution of the
United States, and are now the property
of their masters. This point has been
finally decided by the highest judicial
tribunal of the country, and this on the
plain principle that when confederacy
of sovereign states acquire new terri
tory at their joint expense, equality and
justice demand that the citizens of one
and all of them should have the right to
take into it whatever is recognizable as
property by the common constitution"
And again, in his answer to the New
Haven Memorialists, he says:
+ . Slavery existed at that period and
still exists in Kansas under the Constitu-
ton of the United States. This point has
at last been decided by the highest tri-
bunal known to our laws. How it ever
could have been doubted is mystery.
1t confederation of sovereign states ac-
4 qulre 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
a common constitution. But when the
| people--the bona fide residents of such
territory--proceed to form a State Consti-
futon, then is it their right to decide the
Important question for themselves, wheth-
er they will continue. modify, OF abolish
slavery" a9#..i.f... 4: -aH.l sl.,.
| Mr.. BUCHANAN here distinctly states
Dhen he deems il within the power of the
people of a territory to abolish Slavery,
and that period is when they form their
constitution for admission into the Union.
and not before. ~ s'#-a
/ Judge LEFFINGwELL and his organ, the
Express and Herald, have lately undertak-
en- the task of proving that the bred Scott
decision endorses the right of the people
of territory to exclude slavery from
their midst--in other words endorses the
popular rendering of the doctrine of
,Squatter Sovereignty. Mr. VANDEvER
contended that it denied the existence of
any power to abolish property in slaves
in the territories. Chief Justice TANEY,
in delivering the opinion of. the court,
says: "f3 ae.Ea4
These powers, and others, in relation
to rights of person, which it is not neccs-
sary here to enumerate, are, in express
and positive terms, denied to the General
Government; and the rights of private
property have been guarded With equal
care. Thus the rights of property are
united with the rights of person, and
placed on the same ground by the fifth
amendment TO the Constitution, which |
provides that no person Shall be deprived |
Of life, liberty, and properly, without due
process of law. And an act Of Congress
which deprives a citizen of the United
States of his liberty or property, merely
because he came himself or brought his
property into particular Territory Of the
United States, and who had committed no
offence against the laws, could hardly be
dignifcd with the name Of due process of
law" "'8 Dat'"
X Il Dta *
"fhe powers over person and proper
ty of which we speak are not only not
granted to Congress, but are in express
terms denied, and they are forbidden,to
exercise them. And this prohibition is
not confined 70, the States, but the words !
are general, and extend to the whole ter