The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1860-10-16

most convincing that has ever been de-
livered in this county. He talked flu
emily and well, dealing not Mt all in de-
clamation, but always in fact and in ar
gument. He showed up the bosh about
the " inalienable right of selfgovern.
ment," so continually doled out by Mr.
SAMuELs and Democratic stump speak
ers. He Showed that all these gentle
men contend that the people of the terri
tories have only such rights as are grant
ed TO them by their organic act, and
quoted Mr. DouGLAs's repeated declara-
, ton to that effect. And yet this organic
act IS the work of Congress. Democrats
have never asked, and never propose to
ask, the people of the Territories what
they desire to have incorporated into their
organic acts. Mr.. DorGLAs did not ask
the people of Kansas and Nebraska what
they desired to have in the Kansas Ne
braska bill. He did not ask them whether
they desired to elect their own Judges,
their own executive, and their own sec
rotary. He and his parlizans say that
Congress must make the organic acts
the Constitutons-of the Territories
They give this to Congress, non resident
power, and never consult the people at
all about it. And yet they talk of the
inalienable right of self government
Mr.. DoUGLAs helped to vote down Mr..
TRuMBuLL' proposition to allow the peo-
pie of Kansas and Nebraska to elect their
own executive and judicial officers. He
denies, too, to the people of Dacotah and
Pixies Peak and Nevada the right to set
up local governments, and says tlat they
are liable to fine and Imprisonment
Democratic orators are continually asking
why man is not just as capable of self
government when he goes to territory
as he was when residing in State
Why, then, do they deny to the people
Of Pixies Peak, and of Dacotah, the
right of governing themselves. Mr..
DorGLAS, in the Senate on the 18th OF
May last, denounced these people for
setting up a government. They are our
friends, our neighbors, our relatives. -
Why are they not fit to govern them
selves? The Democracy's " inalienable
right of self-government" don't apply
to them, and shows that their play upon
thls expression is mere clap-trap.
Mr.. Vandever showed that there was
An essential difference between the poll
cy of the men who framed the ordinance
of 1887, and that of Mr.. Douglas. The
men who framed the ord finance declared
that their in tention was to advance the
cause OF Civil and Religious Liberty
That Ordinance excluded Slavery from
the Territories, and resulted completely
in the advancement of freedom Mr..
Douglas six years ago proposed TO do
away with the 1887 plan of governing
the Territories, and substitute his own.
1t was done, and instead of resulting in
the advancement of Civil Liberty, he
boasts that it has given, in that short
period, free territory over to slavery,
five times the extent Of the State of New
York. There is the result OF the two
theories of government. That of the
fathers promoting the cause of freedom,
that Of Mr.. Douglas advancing. by his
own boast, the cause of slavery. Mr..
Fandeyer asked his audience which they
would follow, the Repubicanism of early
days, or the new doctrine of Mr.. Doug
las
Mr. yandever then examined Doug
| lass position relative to the right
Of the people OF the Territories to
! exclude slavery, aud showed that his
position, and the position Of the party,
is that that is a question for the Supreme
Court. That is a law point to be deci-
ded by the judiciary. The Kansas Ne
braska bill Mr.. Douglas has repeatedly
stated, left this matter with the Court
Alter NJ Douglass domination at Bali:
| more, committee was appointed TO
prepare an address. In that address the
committee say that there is conflict of
| opinion in the Democratic party relative
to the right Of the people Of The terri.
! tories 10 exclude slavery from their
midst But the party had unanimously
agreed to leave that question To the Su
preme Court for decision, and had
agreed to abide by that decision, what.
ever il may be. And the committee de.
clare that il is an acl Of bad faith on the
part Of any member OF the party to take
either side until the Court had decided
the point. Douglas Democrats, there.
fore, who declare that slavery can be
driven out Of the territories, are commit.
ting, according 10 their own address, an
act OF bad faith They must wait until
the Court has decided the point, and
then they are pledged by the Wicklifle
resolution to use every department OF
the government 10 sustain and enforce
the decision That distinctly j. Mr.
Doug lass position, and he position Of
his party. The party has been handed
over bound hand and foot, 10 the Court +;
and admitting that lis decision in tile bred
Scott case, is not authoritative in The