The weekly north Iowa times. [volume] (McGregor, Iowa) 1857-1867, 1859-10-05
MISCELLANEOUS.
senator Douglas at Columbus, Ohio.

CoLuMBus, Ohio, Sept. 9TH, 1859.
Senator Douglas was received at the de-
pot this morning, by the military and a
large crowd Of citizens, and was escorted to
his hotel. During the interim between his
arrival and the delivery Of his speech, he
was waited upon by large number Of cit
zens of this and many other adjoining coun-
ties.
At two o'clock this afternoon, Mr.. Doug
las made his appearance, and was received
with much enthusiasm. He immedia ely
proceeded with his remarks, of which the
following is an abstract: ~,
Judge Douglas said that the Republican
party, in their platform, adopted at Phila-
lelphia in 1856, assert the power and de-
clare it the duty Of Congress to prohibit
slavery in all the territories. The Demo-
cratic party are pledged, on the other hand,
by their platform. to the doctrine Of nom
intervention and popular sovereignty in the
terri zaria-~- --~-.-.. .
New Mexico and Kansas, by the acts OF
their Territorial Legislatures, present cases
now for Congressional Intervention with
their domestic affairs, which will put the
advocates of intervention and non-intcr-
vention North and South to the test.
New Mexico, which refused for several
years after the organization of a territorial
government, to introduce orprotect slavery,
passed a law in 1858, to recognize and pro-
tcct slavery in that territory. Kansas, at
the first session of the Territorial Legisla-
ture, in 1855, passed a very stringent law,
ito punish offences against slave proper
ty," by which slavery was introduced and
adequate protection given to it in that
territory. In 1853, however, the slave code
was repealed by an act passed February
| 9th, and all protection to slave property
withdrawn and denied BY this ''unfiiend-
ly legislation" slavery has been excluded
| from the territory of Kansas.
| Now the Northern interventionists art
pledged by their Republican platform, to re-
peal the slave code in New Mexico, ant
prohibit slavery by act Of Congress. While
the opposition in Kentucky, and the South
ern interventionists generally are pledgct
by their principles to intervene and protec
slave property in the territory of Kansas.
These ISSUES must and will be met by tn.
Democratic party. iApplause.) Eon-in
tervention and popular sovereignty must b'
maintained as well in New MeXi>o as il
Kansas. Continued cheering) If New
Mexico wants slave code, let her have it
If New Mexico has laws for the protection
of slave property, SO be it. If Kansas will
not hayv slave code, nor slavery, Congress
must not force her people to accept either
| (Applause)
Northern and Southern interventionist
agree that slavery in the territories is :,
rightful subject of Congressionallegislation
but differ as to the character of such legis
lation. Each insist that Congress shoul'
Intervene in favor of their particular sec
|tion, and against the other section, in viola
ton of the rights of the people most inter
ested. to decide the question of slavery 70
themselves. According to the doctrine 9
the non-intervcntionists, North and South
slavery is not only a rightful subject &
Congressional legislation, but is dependen
upon the Federal authority for its existenc
& and protection, and consequently subject t
Federal regulation and control. The Soutf
ern intcryentionists contend that the whol
power of the Federal Government shoul
be excrtcd for the protection Of slavery i
the territories, and the Northern interver
tionists that the same power should be 9,
erted for its destruction.
The Democratic party, in opposition
;, the interventionists of both sections, hol
that slavery is State institution, and thu
it exists in the slave holding States, "undt
D the laws thereof" and not by virtue Of Il
Constitution of the United States. Th;
slavery, therefore, is beyond the reach {
, control of the Federal authority for good {
Il evil, except in the single case OF iugiti,
slaves, who must be delivered up. III
;. Democratic party were sustained in thes
= principles by the decision of the Supren
Court, in the .Dred Scott" case. II
!, Democratic party are pledged to the prime
: pie of popular sovereignty, by which Il
people of the organized territories, "lli
y those ola State, shall decide for themselve
whether slavery shall or shall not { xist will
in their limits"
Those who insist the first handful
settlers" should not decide the SLAYER
!, question in the territories, should vo
e against the organization Of territories unit
they have sufficient population for polit
cal community capable Of self-governmel
II in all their domestic concerns. No Cover
y mcnt should be established for any peop
who are not qualified by numbers and
: all other respscts to lcgislate for themselv
on all rightful subjects of legislation, su
70 iect only to the Constitution Of the Unite
States. When Territorial Governments a
e. t,blished, the people will leglslate +
j themselves-will form their own domest
- institutions, and if their legislation confii
with the Constitution, it will present J
J" dcal question for the Courts to deterinir
to whose decision all lawabidlng citlze
will and must submit.
The territories must be open to settleme