The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1860-07-26
Herschcl v. johnson.
Record ofd Squatter Sovereignty Candidate.

| Record Of q Squ1tter S0ueretgnty C0ndaddte
The nomination of Fitzpatrick as the can.
didate of the Squatter Sovereigns-Fitzpat
rick, who voted for jeff Davis's Senate reso
lutions, ard for the Lecompton bill-was
surrender of all that the Douglas men have
ever claimed in the way of honesty of pur
pose 1t was base betrayal ofthe masses
of the party, unless they are also false to all
their Northern professions. When he with
drew from the ticket, an opportunity fol
correcting the mistake, if it was a mistake
was afforded but the selection Of Herchel
v. johnson as his successor, is worse than
the original blunder. Johnson is rampant
fre-eater, an avowed secessionist, with as
little sympathy for the peculiaritles of the
Douglas theory of Slavery as with the boldeI
and more honest avowals of Lincoln. In vo
ting for him the Douglasites will have the
consolation of knowing that they are aiding
in the election Of man who has only thor
ough contempt for them and their Squatter
Sovereignty notions. We proceed to the
proof and we present to our readers the
following extracts from a cotemporary, the
editor of which has looked up Mr.. Johnson's
record s........ .....
| tFrom the Cincinnati Gdzette.1
Mr.. johnson first appeared in the Senate
under an executive appointment to fill va.
cancy occasioned by the resignation of the
late Hon. Walter r. Colquitt, on the 14th Of
February, 1s4s. Mr.. Hamlin (then acting
with the Democracy Mr.. Douglas and Mr..
Bell, were among his cotemporaries in the
Senate, and Mr.. Lincoln in the House. His
service in Congress ended on the 4th Of March
1S49. The first speech ofMr. johnson was
on the celebrated Ten Regiment bill. In the
course of his remarks he went even beyond
Mr.. Calhoun, (then in the Senate, zealously
combating that Senator's position that "the
absorption. 70 all Merico would be injurious
to the success of our institutions"
In speech on the Oregon bill, July 7th,
1s4s, he took the most ultra ground on the
question of slavery in the Territories, going
beyond what any Southern man, unless Cal
houn himself, the prince fire eating disun,
ionists, had then ventured to maintain. This
speech, which is peculiarly rich one for our
Northern Democrats at this particular juno.
ture, may be found reported in full in the
Appendix to the Congressional Globe for
that session, commencing on page sS7. We
subjoin some specimens, with appropriate
head lines added.
After establishing, to his own satisfaction,
the doctrine that Congress has no power to
exclude slavery from the Territories, our fire.
eating Senator, now the Douglas candidate
for Vice President, goes on to say:
PROTECTION OF SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES.
1t remains now to consider the question
involved in the amendment proposed by the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis.) That
question is, whether it is the duty Of Con.
gress to guarantee to the stakeholder, who
shall remove with his slaves into the Terri
tory of the United States, the undisputed en-
joyment Of his property in them, so long as it
continues to be Territory. Or, in other
aoords, whether the inhabitants Of a Territory
during their Territorial condition, have the
right to prohibit it therein.
Now let us see how these two questions
vital issues at this moment, and treated
by this associate of Douglas on the Rump
ticket as identical in their real significance
were answered by him, twelve years ago
We continue our quotation
NO POWER WHATEVER CAN EXCLUDE SLAVERY
FROM TERRITORY
For the purpose of this question, it matters
not where the power of legislating for the
Territory resides s-whether exclusively in
Congress, o. jointly in Congress and the in,
labitantS, or exclusively in the inhabitants
of the Territory the power is precisely the
same-no greater in the hands of one than
the other. In no ecent can the shareholder Q,
the South be excluded. from settling IN sach
Territory WITH HIS PROPERTY OF EVERY DEs-
CRIPTIoN.
SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY SQUELCHED.
But suppose that Congress have the right
to establish Territorial Government only,
aud that then all further governmental control
ceases, can the territorial Legislature pass an
act prohibiting Slavery? Surely not. For
the moment you admit necessarily THE SUB
ORDINATION of the people Of the Territory
their dependence on this Government for an
organic law, to give them political existence.
ABSOLUTE CONGRESSIONAL SOVEREIGNTY vs.
NoNINTERvENTIoN.
1t is idle, however, to discuss this question
in this form. For if Congress possess thu
power to organize temporary governments
it must then possess the power to legislate
for the Territories. If they may perform tn
greater, they may less the major includes
the minor proposition. Hence, Congress has
in all cases since the foundation of our Gov
ernment, reserved a veto upon the legislation
ofthe Territorial Governments 1t is absolute
ly necessary, in order to restrain them from
violations OF the Constitution, AMI infringe
ments Of the rights of the States, as join
owners of the public land. If, therefore, al
act of the Territorial Government, prohibitin!
Slavery, should be sent up to Congress 70
approval, they would be bound to withhold
it, upon the ground of its being an act which
Congress themselves could not pass.