The weekly north Iowa times. [volume] (McGregor, Iowa) 1857-1867, 1859-03-16
McGREGOR, IOWA, WEDNESDAY, MARCH Is, 1859

UOL appeal lpi HIS kleCuOlIiy bbI CONlu 'hC WI
er of a single slave appeal to the Supreme Court
to establish his title, if he thought that his
rights were violated. In order to obviatc that
objection, we amended the bill by providing
that where the title to property in slaves, or
any question of personal freedom, was the point
in issue, the right of appeal to the Supreme
Court should exist without reference TO the
amount in controversy.
Thus the Kansas. Nebraska bill stood, grant
ing all rightful power Of legislation on all SUBJ
jects whatsoever to the TERRITORIAL Legislature,
subject only to the Constitution of the United
States, provided they should not pass any law
taxing the property Of nonrcsdents higher
than that of residents. nor any law interfering
with the primary disposition of the soil, nor
impose any tax on the properi of the United
States but there was no exception made as to
slavery. The intent was to confer on the Ter
ritorial Legislature all the power we had on the
subject of slavery, to let them WELD it for or
against free institutions, as ths people of the
Territory chose and the unders anding was,
that we would abide by whatever laws they
might make, provided they did not violate the
Constitution of the United States and the Su-
preme Court was only tribunal that could decide
that question.
Now, sir, stand on the Kansas-N ebraska
bill as it was expounded and understood at the
uHic, Wlth ttllS Aaii po" SE III iCS
stature with the right of appeal to the Supreme
Court to test the validity OF its laws. and no
right whatever to appeal to Congress to repeal
them in the event OF our not liking them. |
am ready to answer the inquiry of the Senator
from Mississippi. whether, if believe the
Maine liq or law to be unconstitutional and
wrong, and il territorial Legislature should
pass it, l would vote here to annnl it? tell
him no. If the people OF Kansas want Maine
liquor law, let them have it, II they do not
want it, let them refuse to pass it. If they do
pass it, and any citizen thinks that law violates
the Constitution, let him make a case and APP
peal to the Supreme Court Ifthe court sustains
his objections. the law is void, Ii it overrues
the objection, the decision must stand until the
people, who alone are to be affected by it, who
alone have an interest in it, may choose to re-
peal it. So | say with reference 10 slavery
Let the territorial legislature pass just such laws
in regard to slavery as they think they have a
right 10 enact under the Constitution of the
United States.
If do not like those laws. will not vote to
repeal them -; if you do not like them. you must
not vote to repeal them but anybody aggriev-
ed may appeal 10 the Supreme Court, and il
they are co institutional, they must stand If they
are unconstitutional, they are void. That was
the doctrine OF non-;n erveniion, as it was un-
derstood at the time the Kansas-Nebraska bill
passed. That is the way it was explained and
argued in the Senate and in the House Of Rep
representatives, and before the country. l,
was distinctly understood that Congress wa:
never to intervene for or against slavery, or fol
Or against any other institution in the territories
but leave the courts to decide all constitutional
questions as they might arise, and the President
to carry the DEGREES Of the court into effect
and, in case OF resistance to his authority il
executing the judicial process, let him use
| if necessary, the whole military force of th'
country as provided by existing laws.
| l know that some gentlemen do not like thC
! doctrine OF non-intervention as well as the,
once did. 1t is now becoming fashionable tt
talk sneeringly Of "your doctrine of non-inter
vention.'' Sir, that doctrine has been q funda
mental article in the Democratic creed for years
! 1t has been repeated over and over again il
every national Democratic plat form--non- -intel
/ yention by Congress with slavery in the State
and territories. The \ Nebraska bill was pred
Gated on that idea-the territorial Legislature Il
S Gsaasse ssfs .age gss easis IS ap
peal to Congress, but right to appeal to the
courts; and the legislation to be void if tn,
Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional
and valid, no matter how obnoxious, if tho
court said it was constitutional. Let mt
call attention to the language of the Kan
sas- Nebraska bill. Its fourteenth section pro
| vices
"lhat the constitution. and all laws of III,
United States, which are not locally inapplicable
shall have the same force and effect in th,
said territory of Nebraska, as elsewhere within
the United States, except the eighth section o
| the act preparatory to the admission Of Mis-
siouri into the Union approved March 6, 1920
which, being inconsistent with the principle o
l.
the States and territories, rs recognized BY the
leg gislation of 1850, commonly called The Com
promise measures. is hereby declared inopera
tive and void it being the true intent anc
mesning of this act not to legislate slavery into
any State or territory, nor to exclude it there
from. but to leave the people thereof perfectly
free to form and regulate their domestic insti
tutlons in their own way, subject only to thu
constitution of the United States.
| Thus in the Nebraska bill, it is declared thai
a Congressional enactment the subject o
slavery was inconsistent with the principle o
non-intervention by Congress with slavery il
the States and territories. This same article o.
faith has gone into the various Democratic plat
forms, and especially into the Cincinnati plat
form. Every Democrat. therefore. is pledged
| by this platform and the organization Of the
party, against any legislation of Congress in
the territories for or against slavery no matte,
how obnoxious the territorial legislation may
be. II it is unconstitutional, you have YOU
remedy 60 to the court and test the question
Ii it is constitutional, you agreed that the peo
pie of territory may have it, l hold you t.
the agreement
Mr.. CLAY.-Will the Senator permit me t.
ask him question
| Mr.. enthusiastically, with pleasure.
| Mr.. CLAY-I ask the Senator whether b.
7 bal, hat, rits .,ft he
has right to carry his slaves into the territories
under the constitution
Mr.. DOUGLAS--When the Senator get
through with his question. will answer.
| Mr.. CLAY should like the Senator tt
answer.
MIR. DOUGLAS.-I do not like this thing 0
requiring categorical answers, when the Sen
aior who puts the question holds the floor
When he gets through will give him an ans
wer.
MIR. CLAY-If the Senator does not answer
it, will answerit. think the citizen has iha
right. When am asked whence he derives tn,
right, say from the constitution. The Su
IRENE Court has so decided. Then, ask tn,
Senator if the constitution gives the riget, how
can the territory deny it and if the territor1
pass law inhibitiug the introduction of slave
there, W here is his redress The Senator says
in the Supreme Court. Suppose he takes
slave there suppose it is stolen from him, anc
he brings all action for its recovery, and tn,
local court decides against him. aud he brings
his case to the Supreme Court 10y appeal, ant
the Supreme Court decides That the law inhibit
ing slavery is unconstitutional, and that he ha:
right to hold the slave, what redress is giyel
TO him if Congress will not secure his rights
The result is just this: that if the Senator b'
tight, the constitution prevails in the States, bu
not in the territories; squatter sovereignty i
superior to the constitution.
! Nj. DUUGLAS.-Iwill answer the Senator
question. First, do not hold that squatte
sovereignty is superior to the constitution.
hold that no such thing as sovereign power at
taches to territory while a territory. / holt
that territory possesses whatever power i
derives from the constitution under the organic
act, and no more l hold that all the power :