St. Charles City Republican intelligencer. [volume] (St. Charles City [Charles City], Iowa) 1857-1861, 1860-05-17


To snstain himself at home, it hccanc c
necessary that he should rcpuliatc all
connection with the intended wrong
Of forcing "A slave constitution upon
an unwilling people against their sol
cInn protest. Duty and srIt-iutrrcst
were ruincidcut and this man orpnck
as he has been called, spit in the face
of thc Administration. Many Of our
Republican friends had great hopes of
hm they Thought it was a ease Of
real conversion they laborcd with
nm as rcpCntaut soul But, alas,
for all their hopes, no sooner had he
secured the coveted boon of Il rc-rlcc-
I "u, than he turned his back upon his
nrw-iuund friends and admirers, the
companions Of his parlor conferences
and all, aud returned to the bosom OF
the Democracy, to grace its triumphs
with the laurcIs he had won. Stratc-
~ is one of the arts Of war The
politician as well as the general un-
dcrStamds this, and may profit by it.
Now, then, for the popular sovc-
rcignty of Mr.. Douglas, which is ar.
gucd against Him 10y many of his par
ty friends, and which is supposed to
Iurk somewhere in the kansas-Nc-
braska bill. After the senatorial clcc-
ton in Illinois, Mr.. Douglas discourscd
in this wise in the Senate, when called
to account by his brother Democratic
Senators, for the seeming hcrcsics he
had been promnlgating Speaking of
the Kansas bill, he said:
We did not pretend to decide the
question whether the Territorial Leg
isIaturc had power or not to prohibit
slavery, but we did agree to give
them all the power we had and, if
they exercised it in such a manner as
to violate the constitutional rights Of
any portion of the people, their rene
dy is to be found in an appeal to the
supreme Court, and not to Congress ="
- Congressional GIoJe, 7HirtyEVih
CDngrcss, sccoHd Session, part 9, page
1858.
And again, in the same speech, Mr..
Douglas says:
: !" mt put slavery on different
footing from other property. rccog-
nize it as property under what is un-
derstood to be the decision of the SUI
prcmc Court. agree that the owner
Of slaves has the same right to re-
move to the Territories, and carry his
slave property with him. as the owner
o! any other species of property, and
to hold the same subject to such local
laws as the Territorial Legislature
may comstitutionally pass"
Entertaining these views, what mat.
ters it if Mr.. Douglas does admit that
Territorial Legislatures may pass laws
unfricndly to slavery? !? He will not
defend their right to DO so. The Kan
sas. Nebraska bill, he says, contcrs
upon the territorial government all
the power which Congress possessed
over the subject ; but it does not pre-
tend to decide the right of Il Territory
To exclude slavery. 1t gives the mas
ter the right to carry his slave prop
crty there, and to hold it subject only
to such laws as the Legislature may
constitutionalIy pass. The Drcd Scott
decision: say one faction of the Demo
cratic party, has already settled it,
that neither Congress nor the Tcrrito-
rial Legislature can prohibit slavery
ia Territories. Not SO, say the other
faction. The decision of the court
only settles the power Of Congress.
The power Of territorial governments
was not involved in the case and so
much of the opinion as relates to tie
latter question is oJtter dirto, and not
binding The difference, as it appears
to my mind, is not worth contcnding
about. 1t is agreed upon all hands
that the court attempted to decide
both points ; and it is therefore plain
that, having given such an intimation
in the Drcd Scott opinion, the court
will be pretty certain to settle the
question in favor of slavery, and
against popular sovereignty, on the
first favorable occasion. Now, what
ever may be the real point of differ
cnce between Mr. Douglas and others
of the Democratic party, in regard to
the powers of a territorial government,
they all agree to submit the question
Of power to the final arhitramcnt OF
the Supreme Court. Who can doubt
the result? AS that court is at pres
cnt constituted, the character of its
decisions on the slavery question can
be surmiscd with as much certainty
as upon the question of the power OF
Congress to charter a national bank
do not speak this disparagiugly oi
the court, for | believe the Judges
all of thcm-to be upright, conscicn
tious, learned, and patriotic men
But they are Of like passions with the
rest of us-may be swaycd by pas
sion or by prejudice. They cannot
wholly divcst themselves OF the bias
resulting from long habit, association
or education.
There is no peculiar virtue in judi
cial crminc to raise the standard o
human nature, and to clear the under
standing of all doubt and obscnrity
Independence of the Legislative brancl
of the Government cannot be safely
trusted to a Judiciary which is not sub
ject at all to the control of the clcc
tive franchise. If we assign it sucl
apower and position we constitute i
an oligarchy at once, and it become,
an independent, not Il coordinate dc
partment of the Government tpol
this point | need not dilate, for tn,
gentleman from New York (Mr. Conk
ling) most ably treated that subjcc
the other day. Why, sir, under suci
a doctrine as this proiessed 10y TIT
popular sovereignty Democracy
should the Supreme Court in the Lem
mon case now pending, decide that
man from the South may take hi
slaves into free State, ard there hnl,
them for temporary convenience, til,
supposed boast Of a southern Senate
that he will yet call the roll of hi
slaves under the shadow of Bunke
Hill, may be fulfilled. AMI snoul,
Mr.. Douglas or any other Democrat
a