The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1860-09-04

ing it used the following language
my opinion in regard to the question which
my colleague is trying to raise here, has been
known to the Senate for years. 1t has been re-
peated over and over again He tried, the 9th
err day, as those associated with him on the
stump used to do two years ago and last year,
! to ascertain what were my opinions on this
| point in the Nebraska bill. ! TOLD THEM
| 1T WAS A JUDICIAL QUESTION"
Again on the 93d of February, 1857,
Mr. DOUGLAS said
"Now, sir, I stand on the Kansas Nebraska
bill, as it was expounded and understood at the
time, with this full power in the Territorial
legislature, sciM the right of appeal to the Sapre,ne
Court to test the ralidity Of its la'rs.
Again he says, speaking of the Kan
sas- Nebraska bill
cit was distinctly understood that Congress
was never to intervene for or against slavery,
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"
In the same debate Mr.. MASON of Vir-
ginia gave evidence upon the same point.
He said, speaking of the Kansas Nebraska
bill
| :" Sir the Senator from Illinois has correctly
said that it the purpose of that bill to re-
init the question of the introduction of slaves
into Territories to the Judiciary, and abide 10y
its decision
But let us come down to the platform
of the Baltimore Convention--,he plat
form upon which Mr.. DOUGLAS now
stands. That declares that
"Inasmuch as differences of opinion exist in
the Democratic party as to the nature an Il extent
of the powers of Territorial Legislature, and
as TO the powers and duties of Congress, under
the Constitution of the United States, over the
institution of slavery within the Territories
ResOlred, That the Democratic party will
abide 10y the decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States on questions of Constitution
al law"
Or, as is more distinctly asserted in the
Wicklffe resolution added at Baltimore,
and cordially endorsed by Mr.. DoUo
LAS
3" Resolpea, That it is in accordance with the
Cincinnati platfrom, that during the existence
of Territorial Governments, the measure of re-
striction whatever it may be, imposed 10y the
Federal Constitution on the power of the Terri
toral Legislature over the subjec of the domes-
tic relations as the same has been or shall hereafter
be decided By the Supreme Court of the United
States, should be respected by all good citizens
and enforced with promptness and fidelity by
euery branch Of the General Government"
Here, then, We see where Mr.. DoUG-
LAS really stands. His argument is not
that the people Of the Territories have
the right to exclude Slavery. He help
ed twice TO vote such proposition down
in the Senate, once when offered by Mr..
CHASE and once by Mr.. TRUMDULL. He
talks much Of the right Of the people OF
the Territories to regulate the institution
in their midst, but there is a manifest
difference between regulating and erclu-
ding. The assertion of the power to er-
clude he carefully avoids. The other
day, at Augusta, Maine, query as to
this power was put to him, but he care
fully avoided an answer. He leaves that
question entirely with the Supreme Court.
What it declares, he says, he will abide
by and help enforce. When we know
what the Court DEGREES on that subject,
we know where Mr.. DOUGLAS stands,
and it therefore becomes important to in
quire whether the Court has decided
the point, and if 50, the purport of the
decision. BY turning to the 10Th vol
ume of Towards Reports. page 1916, we
find an abstract of the bred Scott decis-
ion, embracing the points established by
the Court. This abstract Senator Ben
jamin says, was written out by Judge
TANEY, himself, and is therefore an au-
thoritalive exposition of the decision OF
the Court. The following are four OF
the six points in the syllabus relating to
the question under consideration
Sd EVERY CITIZEN HAS RIGHT TO TAKE
WITH HIM INTO THE TERRITORY ANY ARTICLE OF
PROPERTY WHICH THE CONSTITUTION or THE UNI
TED STATES RECOGNIZES AS PROPERTY"
9TH. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES RECOGNIZES SLAVES AS PROPERTY, AND
PLEDGES THE FEDERAL uONEhSMENT
1T And Congress cannot exercise any more
authority over property of that description, than
it NAV ConstitutionalIy exercise over property
Of any other kind"
5tli :" The act of Congress, therefore, prohib-
ting citizen of the United States taking with
him his slaves when he removes to the Terri
tory in question to reside, is AN EXERCISE OF
AUTHORITY OVER PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH Is
NOT WARRANTED By THE CONSTITUTION, and the
removal ofthe plaintiff, by his owner to that
Territory, gave him no title TO freedom"
9th " While il remains Territory Congress
may legisate over it within the scope of its con
stitutional powers III relation to citizens Of the
United States, and may establish a Territorial
Gopernnlent and The form 81 this Locat government
must be requLatedby tie discretion Of Congress !;
but nth po,cerS not erceeding those nhich Congress
ITSELF By The Constitution is authori5edto exercise
oper citizens Of The United Suites, in respect 10 their
rights Of property.'
Mr.. noUGLAs has left the question en-
lirelv to the Court, and declares that It's
decision must be enforced with prompt
ness and fidelity by every branch of the
General Government =" The Court has
decided that slaves are property under
the Constitution-thats shareholders have
the right to take their property into the