The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1859-07-14

heard it asserted, that one great requisite
for successful public speaking, is a
knowledge of the precise moment when
to stop, and we presume the same rule
holds good as to written augmentation.
II is almost always the case, however,
that disputants, like pugracious women,
are bound to have the last word, il pos
sible, either because they deem it con-
elusive evidence of the superiority of
their position, or because they have a
natural repugnance to being out-talkcd.
The result usually is that their discus
sions become tedious, if not distasteful.
to all but themselves. We do not
know but that such may be the feeling of
our readers relative to our controversy
with the editor of the Cicilian, especially
as it has been necessary, in making even
the outline of an argument, to occupy a
large proportion of our space. But wheth
er such is the fact, or not, and even at
the risk of being considered extremely
fond of the last word, we shall briefly
notice one or two things in his last weeks
reply to us.
Mr.. HEDGES says he is aware that res
olutions in favor of the Wilmot Proviso
were once passed by the Democratic leg
stature of this State, and is also "aware
that such resolutions were passed at one
time by many northern Democratic bod
ies," but says he "knows, too, that
large portion of those Democrats are now
the most furious Republicans" He adds
" No doubt they think themselves con-
sistent. It's enough to say that since
then, the question has been more fully
discussed and passed upon by the SUI
preme COURT
Now it will be recollected that we
quoted these resolutions of the Demo
cratic legislature of Iowa, in proof of
our assertion that the Republican party
does not occupy an aggressive position,
but rather was contending for, and en-
deavoring to uphold, old principles and
policy. Our friend thought that such
assertions exhibited an extraordinary
amount of impotence, and most emphat-
cally denied their correctness, contend
ing that the Republicans were disunion-
lists, traitors 10 the constitution, &c. We
asked him to point out the difference be-
tween the principles of the Republican
party, and the doctrine embodied in the
Democratic resolutions, which he here
acknowledges was the doctrine of many
northern Democratic bodies He has not
attempted to do so. and cannot deny that
they are identical. He simply says that
the men who composed these Democrat
ic bodies are now furious Republi-
cans" Does not that so to prove our
assertion Does it not show that these
men are faithful to old principles, and
that the Democratic party, so called.
have adopted a new policy? Does it
not show that the Republican party is
conservative, is endeayoring to maintain
precisely the position which its opponent,
at the dctum of the pro-slavery oil
garchy, has abandoned We certainly
think SO. We certainly think our friend
has directly admitted the correctness of
our position.
But as an excuse for this reputation,
by his party, of its old policy. he says
" it is enough to say, that since then,
the question has been more fully discuss
ed and passed upon by the Supreme
Court" But he will recolect that the
party had taken its new position before
the question was passed upon by the
Court, and it is believed by not few
that the decision was the result of that
change it could not have been vice
yersa. The change of policy was not
adopted in Difference to the Court, but in
order to gain pro slavery votes.
Our friend says that the Supreme
Court did not decide the question as to
the power of territorial legislature to
prohibit slavery. because that question
was not before it. He says, however, il
did decide against the power of Congress
TO do so. 1t is contended by lawyers
and statesmen, however, that the only
point really before the court was as to
the citizenship of the negro, and that all
the decision, relative to anything but that
question, was mere obiter dicta. The
decision on this point is all that has judi
cial force, and the editor is no more au
thorized to say that the Court decided as
to the powers of Congress, than he has
to say that it decided as to the powers of
territorial egislatuies. The one point