The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1859-03-10


cited the clauses of the constitution |
specially relating to slaves to prove it
He says: 81 have heard many SIRENS
song on the doctrine of non-intervention
a thing shadowing and fleeing, chang
ing its colors as often as the chameleon
which never meant anything fairly, un-
less it was that Congress would not at
tempt to legislate on subject over
which they have no CONTROL He asks
how is it possible for one still claiming
to follow the path of the constitution, to
assert that Congress has no power TO
legislate in relation to the subject (slave-
ry) anywhere" while the fugitive slave
law remains upon the statute book, and
he acknowledges 1t to be constitutional ?.
He contends that Congress does possess
the power to legislate upon the subject,
power in atfording to slave property in
the territories that protection which the
supreme court has decided it has right
to. He says :" if it be the obligation of
the United States to protect its citizens
in their constitutional rights, and it be
shown that those constitutional rights
are violated by the inhabitants of Ter
ritory, or anybody else, it is the duty Of
Congress to interpose whatever power it
possesses to make that protection ade-
quate." Mr. MASON also spoke to the
same purpose, as likewise did Mr.. GREEN,
who said "All the power the Territory
has is derived from Congress, and can
be resumed at pleasure. The creature
can never be equal to the creator" Mr..
PUGH said that he would never agree
to the passage of an act of Congress to
protect slaves in the Territories, and
warned the South that if they attempted
it, the North would be irrevocably lost
to the Democracy. Mr.. GwIN denied
emphatically the correctness of Mr..
DoUGLAs' Interpretation of the principles
of the Kansas Nebraska bill, and said as
did also Mr.. HUNTER, that he never sup
posed that it endorsed the doctrine of
squatter sovereignty Mr.. STUART, Mr..
BRoDERIcK and Mr.. BIGLER supported
Mr.. DOUGLAS, and Messrs. IvERsoN and
BENJAMIN, and several other Southern
Senstors, opposed his position.
This debate is important as foreshad-
owing the issues that will be presented in
the contest of 1860. The South, to
man, repudiate the dogma of Popular
Sovereignty, and prove that it was but
specious pretense, to secure northern
votes. The Supreme Court tore away the
flmsy veil which shrouded it, and no
longer able to hide the true issue, the
South have come forth boldly to the bat
tie. If the bred Scott doctrine is the
true one, then they are right. IfSlavery
is protected by the constitution, then the
STAKEHOLDER has a right to take.his slaves
to the territories, and has also right 10
hold them there, and to have his property
protected while there. And if tie terrific
rial Legislature refuses to carry out the
constitutional guarantee, we see no reason
why Congress should not take steps to en-
force it. This is the inevitable, logical
result Of modern democratic doctrine
Either bred Scott must be abandoned, or
the right of the South to Slave Code from
Congress stands clear and indisputable.
Is the platform of the editor of the Cir
iiian, which he says is large enough to
hold the South, sufficiently spacious to
accommodate this appcndage, also? Will
Mr.. HEDGES answer