Sioux City register. [volume] (Sioux City, Iowa) 1858-1871, 1860-01-14
PRsslDHsr,s nnseAen.

Long established usage has led 70 %
expectation upon the part Of the psbRs
that the qualifications Of . Prssidsass ansu.
q message will Be ascospanisd with 10
editors commsats, upoa the sentiments
which It contains However partissns
may wrangle over Tie views Of Presidsu.
BUCHANAN. A. given in the message which
~ this week publish, 1t will be conceded
by oil that it 10 plain, straightforward and
d'snihed state paper; that the positions
entertained BY our chief magistrate are
presented " the public in clear and forci-
Die language, without ambiguity or any
attempt at concealment. With two excep.
tions, the recommends tions contained in
the message will meet with general ID.
prevail. The 6rs. Of tbss. is upon the
question Of slavery 10 the territoriss.-
while the President very clearly iu,iuatss
bis d''approvsl Of the dogma Of the
Southern fire eater that Congress shod
'sg'slats to protect slavery in the terrific.
nes' he does not come up to the popular
sovereignty doctrine Of Senator DeucLAs.
but assumes that under the Drsd Scot. De
e's'oo slavery exists BY constitutional RICH.
and must BE- protected BY the courts until
a. citizens Of sovereign State the psopl.
nave passed upon the question. On the
o'her hand, Senator DOUGLAS maintain.
that such 10 not the force or effect of the
bred Scott decision. bu. that the righ. Of
the people Of the territories exists to set
tie the question ~ they may elsct-.ha,
such was the doctrine OF the Kansas Ne
6ra'ka acs-the platform Of ls56-as we'll
- OF M. BucHASAS's letter Of accsp.
lance. It would be folly to attemp, to
conceal the TACT thatin the North west nine.
te"ths Of the Democracy favor the view.
OF Mr.. DOUGLAS upon the su bjec.. Prac,i.
cally, the difference in the views of the.e
distinguished statesmen amount, only tn
an abstraction, IS no man ownip. slaves
will see the slightest inducement to move
them into territory when the public cen.
s'ment 10 averse to the Institution Of sla.
very--and when the ultimate decision O,
the question BY the people, under ei,he,
view Of the case. will be foregone con
clos'on at very early period in the his.o
~ Of the territory.
The second point Of controversy will b,
the Presidents recommendation on the
subject Of protecting our citizens in Mex
leo. IL will be seen that hs advises tbs
an armed force be sent into that Rcpubli,
for the purpose Of obtaining idemni,y 70,
the past, aud security for the future"
1t is an unfortunate fac, tina, dis,rac-
ton, anarchy, and lawlessness are 90 rif;
in that country that there is little hope O
such = government ~ cen be depe ndet
upon to afford adequate protection to tbos,
OF our citizens who may extend their com
msrcial operations thither yet, the ex
trsme measures proposed are so foreign ,c
the established policy Of our country, and
the precedent would be one so liable t,
lead to the most unwarrantsble interfer-
encs in the affairs Of other nations tina,
its propris'y is worthy Of the most grave
and serious consideration. Upon these
two questions the future historian aided
by the light Of experience will pass iudy
ment. and while We may 10, in the heA,
OF partisan and sectional excitement be
able to render full and meri,ed Justice to o
long tried. able and patriotic servant, we
should, in view of his pro,ras,ed and dis
tiaguished services in the cause of bis
country, concede TO him honest intention.
and pure motives, and indulge hope tina,
the conclusion Of his administration may
be peaceful. prosperous, and promotive Of
the good Of our country.