St. Charles City Republican intelligencer. [volume] (St. Charles City [Charles City], Iowa) 1857-1861, 1860-09-27
From the McGrcgor Press
Stephen A. Douglas and Henry CLAY.

that no Henry Clay Wing can consis
emily act with the Republican party
but to be consistent, should vote Il
the Douglas faction of the prcser
: Democratic party. We cannot sc
how this can be, when the record
; Douglas is 50 different from that ,
| Mr.. Clay. When, and uhere did He,
ry Clay advocate the doctrine of Squa
ter Sovereignty, and that slaves ar
property under the Constitution, Iik
any other species Of property, tha
the owner can take them into frc
territories, and that the only way +
get them out, is by anfrundly legia0
tlon of the people Of the territory
We know that Henry Clay never ad
yocatcd such an absurdity as this
But let US look at the record Of tn,
two men, and sec what the great Ken
lucky statesman did say, and wha
the little Squatter Sovereign does say
In a speech made at New Orleans
IN December, 1858, Mr.. Douglas said
|. III common with the democrac,
OF Illinois, accept the decision of the
Supreme Court Of the United States
III the Drcd Scott case, as an author
itat'vc exposition Of the Cons titution
" hatcver limitations the Constitution
as cxpoundcd by the Courts, imposes
/ on the authority Of territorial legis
Iaturc, We chccrtully recognize and
respect IN conformity with that dcci
sion. Slaves are recognized as prop
crty, and placed on an equal footing
with all other property hence, the
owner Of slaves, the same as the own,
er OF any other species of property
has right to remove to a territory
and carry his property with him.
Mr.. Douglas, in his speech in reply
to Mr.. Davis, of Mississippi, made in
the United States Senate, Feb. 23d,
1860, (scc Congressional Globe, 2d
part, page l244) said :
We agree that under the decision
of the Supreme Court of the United
states, slaves are property, standing
ON an equal footing with all other
property, and that consequently the
owner OF slave has the same right
to cmlGratc to territory, and carry
his slave property with him, as the
owner OF any other species Of proper
~ has to move there, and carry his
property with him
Again, i'll the same speech, Mr..
Dou1 LAS says
The right Of transit to and from
the territories, is the same for one
species Of property as it is for all
others. Thus far, the Senator from
Mississippi and myself agrcc-that
slave property in the territories stands
on an equal footing with every other
species Of property"
Again, in the same speech, lie pro-
cccds thus:
" Now the Senator from Alabama
asks Inc whether the southern people.
under tue Constitution, have not the
night to carry their slaves there
answer, ycs-thc same right that Won
nave to carry any other property"
And now, in the very same speech,
he reltcrates and clinchcs his previous
expressions, in this wise
Slaves according to that decision.
(pred Scott) being property, and
standing on an equal footing with all
other property, there is just as much
obligation on the part Of the tcrrito-
rial legislature to protect slaves as
every other species Of property, as
there is to protect horses, cattle, dry
goods, liquors, &c"
1t would seem that there can be no
as to the meaning Of Mr..
Douglas in these extracts. The lam
guage is plain and uncquivocaI, and
now let us see whether Henry Clay
was ever equally explicit in the ex-
preston of his sentiments. In his
great speech, made in the United
states Senate ont the 22d of July, 1850, |
during the compromise discussions,
Mr.. Clay says:
" In my opinion, therefore, the sup
position that the Constitution of the
United States carries slavery into
California, supposing her not to be Il
state, is an assumption totally unwar-
rantcd by the Constitution. Why, if
the Constitution gave the privilege,
It would be incompetent for California
10 adopt the provision which she has
n her Constitution. The Constitution
IF the United States being supreme,
40 State could pass an enactment in
of the Constitution. |
My rules of interpreting the Constitu-
ion Of the United States, are the good .
I'D rules Of '9S and 90. | have new
II in my life, dcviatcd from these
'ules. And what are they? The
is an aggregate of ceded
powers. No power is granted, ex-
:ept when it is expressly delegated,
II where it is necessary and proper
o carry into effect delegated pow
II; and if in any instance, the power
o carry slaves into the territories is
granted to you by the Constitution, or
$ an incident necessary to the carry
nS out OF any other power that is
delegated in the Constitution, l have
levcr been able to perceive it. Amidst
III the vicissitudes Of public life, and
amidst all the changes and turns of
'arty, | never have in my life dcvia-
ed from these great fundamental, and
think, indisputably true principles OF
nterpretating the Constitution of the
Jnitcd States. Take these principles
o be true, and where is the power
an any one point it to me (which
'ivcs you right to carry your slaves
o California Where is the deleea-
ed power to which it attaches as a
ecessary implication? 1t is nowhere
o be found You must resort to some
nch general principle as the Federal
SITS did in the early history of this
ountry, when they contended for the
Doctrine of the general welfare :
'ut you cannot put your finger on the
'art of the Constitution which con- (
'eys the right or the power to carry
,aves from one of the States Of the
Union. to any territory Of the United
states" |
From these expressed opinions Of