The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1859-09-01
Senator Harlan's Speech.

the greatest political speeches in this
place. on Tuesday night last. that has
ever been delivered in the State OF Iowa.
He had very large audience. every seat
in the Court House being occupied, many
OF them by ladies. The Senator is
plain looking, thick set man, dresses
very ordinary, and to superficial OBJ
server gives no evidence Of the intellec-
tual power displayed by him. He has,
however, a large and apparently we'll
balanced head, and when speaking his
keen, brilliant eye lights up and gives a
fine expression to his features. He was
suffering somewhat with hoarseness, but
still his voice was strong and his enun-
citation distinct He talked fluently, and
his gestures, in which there was nothing
extravagant, properly emphasized his
language.
We cannot hope to give the least pos
sible conception of Mr.. HARLAN's argu-
ment, even if we had the time to elabo-
rate our notes. 1t was the clearest, the
deepest, the most powerful reasoning we
ever heard on the stump. His mastery
exhibition Of the powers of unlimited and
constitutional governments of the pow
ers and peculiarities of our own govern
ment of the relation of that govern
ment to the citizen-the power given it
to protect that citizen in his rights to life,
to liberty, to property, to reputation, to
conscience, and the reasons why it has
no power to deprive him of these natu-
raj rights, rights belonging to him by
virtue of his indiyiduality-we say the
clearness and force with which he laid
down these propositions as the basis of
his argument cannot be exceeded He
showed that our fathers had said that
these rights were no. only natural and
unalienable, but that the object of all
just government was to protect them. He
showed how they had endeavored to pro-
tect them, and asked whether there was
man in the State of Iowa who would
grant that it was right for State to vio-
late these natural rights. If not, why
help to confer upon territory the right
to do so. He passed, then, to the appli-
cation of the principle to our political
contests. He showed that all States were
bound by constitutions, and could pass
no laws incompatible with these, all of
which contained recognition of man S
natural rights. Territories, as well as
States, should have a fundamental law,
and he asked who shall form these acts
for the territories. Some Democrats con-
tend that the people of territory should
govern themselves precisely as the peo-
pie of a State. The people Of a Stale
make their fundamental law, thence it
follows, according to these gentlemen,
that the people OF a territory should do
likewise. See where this would lead. A
thousand persons in Dacotah might get
together, form constitution, elect gov
ernor, legislators, and other officers, and
having thus made all necessary prepare
ton, may demand admission into the
Union. A thousand more persons might
locate farther west and do the same five,
or ten, or twenty thousand more might
do the same on other portions of the pub
lie domain, and thus innumerable little
states might be formed, each sending
to Congress two Senators, and thus con-
trolling the policy of the government.
This was the logical result Of this theory
of Squatter Sovereignty. Still, he knew
this was not what these gentlemen really
wanted. They, as well as Republicans,
want Congress to make fundamental
law, as had been done since the forma
ton of the government. The only real
question, then, was as to what shall be
put in the organic act. Shall it contain
a provision preventing the people from
passing laws curtailing rights natural
and unalenable. or shall it permit such
laws to be passed ? Democrats contend,
and the same argument was adduced in
the place in which he then stood, that a
denial Of the right to pass such laws was
an exercise of tyranny. Congress de-
MED this right to the people of the terri
tories of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michi-
gan, Wisconsin. Iowa, Minnesota, and
Oregon. Would any man within the
sound of his voice say that the inhabi-
tants of those territories were thereby
enslaved? Did any settler in the terri
tory of Iowa, some of whom might then
be present, feel that he was slave be-
cause the power over life, liberty, and
conscience was not given to the govern
ment established in that territory? No