St. Charles City Republican intelligencer. [volume] (St. Charles City [Charles City], Iowa) 1857-1861, 1860-09-20
From the McGreg1r Press
Stephen A. Douglas and Henry Clay.

; Democratic party. We cannot see
how this can be, when the record of
, Douglas is so different from that of
Mr.. Clay. Hhen, and mhcre did Hen
ry Clay advocate the doctrine of Squat
ter Sovereignty, and that slaves are
property under the Constitution, like
any other species of property, that
the owner can take them into free
territories, and that the only way to
get them out, is by antrerdiy lfgiAa-
Lton Of the people Of the territory
We know that Henry Clay never ad-
vocatcd such an absurdity as this. I
But let us look at the record of the
two men, and see what the great Ken
lucky statesman did say, and what
the little Squatter Sovereign does say.
In speech made at New Orleans,
III December 1858, Mr.. Douglas said:
" /. IN common with the democracy
OF Illinois, accept the decision of the |.
supreme Court of the United States.
III the Drcd Scott case, as an author
ltativc exposition of the Constitution.
" hatcver limitations the Constitution,
as cXpoundcd by the Courts, imposes
on the authority of a territorial cgis-
laturc, we chccrfully recognize and
respect in conformity with that dcci-
sion. Slaves are recognized as prop
erty, and placed on an equal footing
with all other property hence, the
owner OF slaves, the same us the own
cr OF any other species of property,
has right to remove to 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, I'd
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 a slave has the same right |
to cmigratc to territory, and carry
his slave property with him, as the
owner Of any other species of proper
| ty has to move there, and carry his
property with him.
Again, in the same speech, Mr..
DouLla says:
.'1'ha right Of tr""o;t 20 end f. o.n
the territories, is the same for one
species of property as it is for all
others. Thus far, the Senator from
Mississippi and myself agree--tlat
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 me whether the southern people,
under the Constitution, have not the
right TO carry their slaves there?
answer, ycs-thc same right that you
have to carry any other property"
And now, III the very same speech,
he rcitcrates and clinchcs his previous
expressions, in this wise:
Slaves according to that decision,
| (Drcd Scott,) being property, and
standing on all equal footing with all
other property, there is just as much
obligation on the part OF the terrific
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
mistake as to the meaning of Mr.
Douglas in these extracts. The lam
t 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, ON the 22d Of July, 1850,
= during the compromise discussions,
r 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
t State, is an assumption totally unwar-
: rantcd by the Constitution. Why, il
a the Constitution gave the privilege,
a it would be incompetent for California
+ to adopt the provision which she has
/ in her Constitution. The Constitution
| of the United States being supreme,
= no State could pass an enactment in
f contravention of the Constitution.
My rules Of interpreting the Constitu-
Y tion of the United States, are the good
e old rules of '9S and '99. have nev-
Il or in my life, deviated from these
o rules. And what are they? The
J. Constitution is an aggregate of coded
powers. No power is granted, ex
If cept when it is express y delegated
l. or where it is necessary and proper
c to carry into effect delegated pow
T. er and if in any instance, the power
l. to carry slaves into the territories is
granted to you by the Constitution, ol
IF is an incident necessary to the carry
C ing out of any other power that Ii
IT delegated in the Constitution. | have
n never been able to perceive it. Amids
II all the vicissitudes of public life, ant
IS amidst all the changes and turns o
party, | never have in my life devia
C. ted from these great fundamental, anc
/, | think, indisputably true principles o
1t interpretating the Constitution of TIN
N United States. Take these principle
ic to be true, and where is the power
can any one point it to me !-whicl
o. gives you right to carry your slave
H. to California ? Where is the dclcga
ir ted power to which it attaches as I
le necessary implication ? 1t is nowher
Il, TO be found. You must resort to SOM
,c such general principle as the Federal
.d lists did in the early history of thu
a. country, when they contended for tin
lc doctrine of the general welfare.
But you cannot put your finger on tn
part of the Constitution which COZ
veys the right or the power to carr
slaves from one of the States of tn
Union, to any territory Of the Unite
he States"