The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1860-07-10

W VA an uhSAFiiCu tei III VII guy fLIl,
Of that year, he made speech on the
Oregon bill, and we have now before lis
the Appendix to the Congressional Globe
of that year, containing his speech. Now
hear how Justify this candidate of the
Squatter Sovereigns argues against
Squatter Sovereignty. He argues at
much length to prove that Congress has
no right to exclude Slavery from the
Territories, and then goes on to demol-
ish the dogma of his friends as follows:
But suppose that Congress have the right to
establish a Territorial Government only and
that then, all further government control ceases:
can the Territorial Legislature pass an act pro-
hibiting slavery Surely not. For the mo-
ment you admit the right to organize Terrific
rial Government to exist in Congress, you ad-
NIT necessarily the subordinaton of the people
of the Territory-their dependence on this gov
eminent for an organic law, to give them polt-
zeal existence. Hence, all their legislation must
be in conformity with that organic law they
| can pass no act in violation of it-none but such
as it permits. Since, therefore, Congress has
no power, as have shown, to prohibit slavery
itants of the Territory they cannot authorize
Territorial legislature to do that which they
have no power to do.
The territorial legislature cannot pro-
hibit slavery, nor is the power in the
people. He says:
But suppose the right of legislation for the
| Territory be in its inhabitants, can they pro-
hibit slavery? Surely not and for reasons
| similar to those which show that Congress can
not
Again he says
The institution of slavery is guaranteed by
the Constitution of the United States, and it
has the same protection thrown around it.
which guards our citizens against the granting
of titles of nobility, or the establishment of re-
ligion; therefore Congress acould be as much
bound to peto an act of Territorial legislation pro-
hbiting it, as an act violating these rights of ev-
cry citizen of the Republic.
Hear how nicely he deals with this
Douglas humbuggery about self-govern-
ment:
In denying the power of the Territorial legs-
atures to exclude citizens of the slaveholding
States to settle in the Territories with their
slaves, say nothing in violation of the right OF
self-government. The right of self-government
does not necessarily imply the right to do any
and everything which they may think proper
| to do. The States of this Union possess, in the
most absolute degree, the right of self-govern
ment; and yet they must legislate in subordi-
nation to the Constitution. They are limited
in their action to the terms of the compact into
which they have voluntarily entered. They
must respect the relation they sustain to the
Confederation. is it, then, any hardship--any
abbreviation of their rights-to require the ter
ritorial governments to be subordinate also to
the Constitution, and to regulate their action
according to the relations which they sustain to
the United States 7
He enforces the argument again in a
different style, and his present support
els will find it hard to meet his objec
| tons:
| If you assert the broad proposition that the
inhabitants of the Territory, by virtue of the
right of self-government, have the right to ex-
clude slavery therein, the question arises, how
| many inha bitants shall there be to enable them
to do this? Shall it be five hundred or ten OF
| twenty thousand2 Shall few thousand peo-
pie in Oregon-a vast territory out of which
! five or six large States may be caryed--deter-
mine that question for all future generations
few thousand half-civilized Mexicans, inhab-
iting the Territories of California and New
Mexico, decide what institutions shall exist
there The idea is ridiculous and absurd. The
States Of this Union have too deep an interestin
these vast dominions, to permit them to be sur
rendered to such n control and such destiny
What have our Douglas friends to say
to these arguments Of their candidate ?
Not only does he repudiate in the strong
est terms, non intervention, but he as
strongly argues that intervention is the
right and duty of Congress. But perhaps
our Squatterites will say that he has
been converted from the error Of his way,
and is now in the straight and narrow
path. How long is it since he has been
converted !? Let us see. On the 4th
day Of last June, at n Democratic State
Convention held at Mlled geville. Geor-
gia, called to take action on the sece S.
ion Of the delegates from Charleston, Mr..
HERscHEL V. JOHNSON made a minority
report from the business committee, in
which the following resolution occurs,
the report being signed by Mr.. JOHNSON
and three others:
ResOloed That we reaffirm the Cincinnati
platform, with the following additional posi-
tons
LIST. That the citizens of the United States
have m equal right to settle with their prOperty
Of any kind, in the organized Territories of the
United States, and that under the decision of
the Supreme Court Of the United States in the
case Of bred Scott, which we recognize as the
correct exposition of the Constitution in this
particular, stare property stands upon The same
footing as all other descriptions Of property, and
that neither the General Government NOR ANY
TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT can destroy
or impair the right to Stare property any more than
any other kinds of property that property of
all kinds, slaves as well rs any other species of
property, in the Territories, stand upon the
same equal and broad constitutional basis, and
subject to like princi pies of recognition and
PROTECTION IN The LEGISLATIVE, judicial
and erccutioe Departments Of the government.
This, recollect. was only one month
ago. Mr.. johnson shows that what he
was in lS4e, he is in 1869. He was
against non intervention then, he is
against non intervention now. And yet
he is the candidate for the Vice Presi-
af a, N