The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1859-06-30

territorrl legislature is undoubtedly the
creature of Congress-the editor Of the
Cigilian to the contrary Notwithstanding
and cannot, therefore, possess greater
power than Congress itself, as Senator
GREEN emphatically observes. We say,
therefore, that there is no method, under
the decision, by which Slavery can be
abolished in the territories, and assert,
therefore, that Popular Sovereignty is in
direct conflict with il. Mr.. DOUGLAS. in
his Freeport speech, and in the debate in
the Senate, last winter, did not assume
that any territorial Legislature has the
right 10 pass law abolishing slavery.
His only method of getting rid of it is
for the people Of the territories to refuse
it adequate protection-is by unfriend-
ly legislation" But as the Supreme
Court says that protection must not be
denied to this, any more than TO other
property, the South argue, and very log
ically, too, that when the court said
this it meant adequate protection, or
else there is no protection at all
and if the territorial government re-
fuses it, they will come to Congress,
the creator of that territorial govern
ment, and demand from it what the
Court says are simply their constitution
al rights. Is not their position consist
ent with the decision ? Of surety it
is-it is founded thereon.
What is Mr.. BUCHANAN's opinion on
this point? He says distinctly, in his
answer to the New Haven memoralists-
document for which the editor once ac-
corded him much credit-that the prop
er time for the people of a territory to
deal with this question, was when they
come to form a constitution preparatory
to admission as state This is his view
of the decision of the Court, and the
view, we verify believe, of very large
preponderance of the Democratic party
All the Southern Democratic Senators SO
expressed themselves, as did also GwIN,
of California, and, indirectly, BIeLER, of
Pennsylvania. Mr.. PUGH, of Ohio, had
to sustain the adverse position by re-
pudiation of the Supreme Court, which
he did in language as strong as has yet
been used by Republicans. We will
quote some extracts from the speeches Of
some of these Democratic Senators, which
will show to our friend that we are not
alone in the opinion that the decision of
the Supreme Court denies to the people
of a territory the right to abolish slavery.
These opinions, recollect, are the opin-
ions of Democrats-leaders of the Dem
ocratic party-men who have, more than
any others, framed the modern policy of
that party. Mr.. BRowN, of Mississippi,
on this point, said:
l give you warning now, that if Kansas legis-
late in a spirit of hostility to slavery, the State
which l represent and, in my opinion a vast
majority of the southern people, will come to
Congress, and demand of YOU in obedience to
the written Constitution expounded by the
illustrious men who adorn the Supreme Bench
of the United States, that you annul their legis-
lation, and substitute instead laws giving AIDE
quate and sufficient protection to slave property.
When you have done that you have discharged
your duty, and your whole duty and when
you do less, you are derelict in your duty, under
the constitution of the United States.
Mr. GREEN, of Missouri, also said
News has been received to-day from Kansas,
that the Territorial Legislature, which adjourn
ed on the 18th, passed law declaring that from
and after the passage of that act slavery shall
cease to exist in Kansas. Who did that? The
Legislature in territory of the United States
What says the Federal Constitution The Su-
preme Court says that under the Constitution
slavery may exist and shall exist as long as it is
territory that every man who chooses to 90
there can go, and take his slave with him Here
is a direct conflict between the Territory and the
decision of our rights.
Senator Mason, of Virginia, also said
The Supreme Court declared that there was
no power in Congress, under the Constitution,
TO prohlOlt the introduction OF slavery INTO the
territories and, as a consequence necessarily
following, a logical and legal consequence fully
admitted, as ] understand, in the argument of
the honorable Senator from Illinois, as The legis-
lative power of the Territory was derivative, and
purely derivative, there being nothing primary
in it, 1t followed as consequence, both logically
and legally, that the people of the Territory pos
sessed no such power.
We might multiply extracts from the
speeches of these and other senators, that
would, just as fully as those we have Civ
en-, sustain our position. But the al
ready great length of our article forbids.
The whole argument turns upon the point
as to the powers possessed by the people
of a territory. We have shown from the
decision of the court, as plainly express
ed, and also as interpreted by the best
Democratic authority, that they possess
no powers except such as are delegated
to them by Congress and as the Su-
preme Court has decided that Congress