The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1860-07-24
Mr.. Finnegan's Speech.

ME- ElnneSan'S Speechs
Ey- Some seventy five or eighty per-
sons were present at the Court House on
Friday night last, to listen to Mr. FrNNE-
CANS defence of the doctrines and cam
didates Of the Southern wing of the De-
mocracy. The audience was probably
nearly equally divided between LINCOLN
and DouGLAs men, there being, prob
ably, not more than two or three Brock
1NRIDGE men present. There was but
one prominent DOUGLAS man in the
House, and he did not find it agreeable
to stay great while. There was evil
IDENTIFY studious attempt on the part of
the Douglas leaders to avoid the meeting,
either because they were DESTROYS Of
frowning down any demonstration of
Breckinridgism, or else feared the force
Of Mr.. FINNEGAN's invective. The speak
err spoke for thirty five or forty minutes,
and at times strongly in denunciation Of
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, and his humbug
of Squatter Soveleignty. He showed
the twistings and turnings. the inconsis-
tencies and tergiversations Of that dema-
gogue, and very sensibly argued that
DOUGLAS and JOHNSON could not posi-
bly, receive an electoral vote. In this
he met the appreciation and applause of
the Republicans. He had, too, very
poor opinion Of the Republicans, and a
not much better one of their candidates,
and therein he pleased the Douglasites.
His argument, however, in favor Of the
principles of the Southern Democratic
party, were extremely lame-based upon
false premises and of course reaching a
false conclusion. We certainly think,
however, that this was the only honest
Democratic speech that we have ever
heard in the county. Starting with the
assumption made by Mr.. DOUGLAS at New
Orleans, that slaves are property, and re-
garded by the Constitution precisely as
other property, he contended logically
that as the Constitution would deny to a
territorial Legislature or to the people of
a territory, the right to deprive settler
there of his horse or his COW, so it would
deny their right to deprive him of his
negro property. Taking also the bred
Scott decision, which Mr.. DOUGLAS en-
dorses, and which his followers profess
to endorse, the speaker followed honestly
and boldly to where that endorsement
leads, to the right of protection to slave
property in the territories. Starting from
these premises-where Mr.. DOUGLAS and
his party start-we say no one can hon
estly or consistently reach a"y other con
clusion than that reached by Mr.. FINNE
GAN. Either Democrats must deny that
slave property stands upon the same foot
ing as other property, or else they must
admit its right 10 protection. Either
they must give up bred Scottish or
Squatter Sovereignty. They are oppos-
ing propositions-directly, totally SO.
One cannot go up without the other com
ing down. One cannot live without the
other perishing. We say, therefore, that
Mr.. FiNNEGAS's position is an honest one.
He does not hesitate to go where his
propositions honestly lead him, and re-
fuses to be guilty of the double dealing
which marks the Douglasites-refuses to
attempt the ridiculous farce of trying to
ride two hobbies headed in opposite d.
rections, as the followers of the Illinois
demagogue are doing. We think his
premises are wrong, and his conclusions
abomnable. but they are consistent, and
that is something in his favor.