The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1860-09-20
For the Courier
Is Douglas i'm favor Of Inter-
veiatiOM by Congress

/ MR.. EDITOR. The Democracy oil the north,
through ignorance, seem inclinel to force
upon the Republicans, the following ques
ton, which now propose to explain to them
as they appear to be in total ignorance, as to
"why the South would refuse to unite on
Mr.. Douglas, if his platform affords all pro
lection to slave property in the Territories
which they ask" The question might ap-
pear difficult at first, but as you will see it is
easily explained. 1t will be remembered by
all who are acquainted with the proceedings
Of the convention which nominated Mr.
Douglas, that the concluding resolution of
the platform was introduced by Mr.. Wick
life, of louisiana after Mr.. Douglas was
nominated, and on motion of Mr.. Payne, of
Ohio, was adopted unanimously in the fol-
lowing words: ...... ...--..
"Resolred, That it is in accordance with
the Cincinnati platform, that during the ex-
istence of Territorial Government, the meas
ure of restriction whatever it may BE-, impos-
ed by the Federal Constitution, on the pow
err of the Territorial Legislature, over the
vi IlS uo!iSSllI iSldttCliS, Us INC SnVtG
has been or shall hereafter be deciaeI6y tile
Supreme Court of the United States, should
be respected by all good citizens and enforced
with promptncss and fidelity By eosry branch
Of the General Government"
Doug'asites, are you MT ans rerel, ipso
,facto that it was because the North would
not accept of and adopt this resolution, as
plank into their platform And because
they would not the South Withdrew from
the union convention and went into Sec
tional one. But the North, after fighting
this, or a similar resolution, until they had
split tn, c,nventoa, bursted up the party
and nominated Mr.. Dou LAS on their own
platform; in word after tn " ha gained
the battle, they then surrendered ana adopt.
ed just such Stare Code plank as the South
had wanted to force upon them. Why did
they do it? Mr.. Wicklifft, the man who in
troduced the res olution, said openly in tn,
Convention, that its adoption would give
Douglas 10000 votes in the State Of Louis
lana which was the object Of this resolution.
That explains and exposes the whole thing.
Next, wish to show that Mr.. Douglas,
by accepting Of this resolution, not only
stands pledged himself, but claims that it is
the duty of the Federal Congress TO ''gusrd
and protect slavery in the Territories of the
United States, which is all that Mr.. Breck-
lnrldge claims, so far as regards the question
of slavery within the Territories First, the
Supreme Court has decided that "epsry cit
tsen Of the United States has a right to take
aciM him into the Territories any kind of
property, aohich the Constitution Of the Uni
ted States recognizes as property" Now,
the question is, what does the Federal Con-
stitution recognise as property The Su-
preme Court says that "The Constitution of
the United States recognises Skapes as prop
erty and pledges the Federal Government to
protect it." Further, in speaking of the
powers conferred upon Congress, over the
subject of slavery in the Territories of the
United States, the Supreme Court has said,
"the only pouer conferred is the po,ccr coup
led WiM the duty Of guarding and protecting
the oaoner IN his rights" And Mr. Douglas
is pledged by his platform to enforce the de-
cision Of the Supreme Court, "as tie same
has been or shall hereafter be deciaed,' over
the institution of slavery in the Territories,
"by erery branch Of the General Gorern-
naent." Is not Congress one branch of the
General Government? If that is so then,
Congress is one branch of the General Gov
eminent, that if the Supreme Court should
decide which it has already done that slave
ry exists in the Territories beyond the power
of any Territorial Legislature to remove it,
is it not bound by the Douglas platform, as
branch of the General Government, to en-
force that decision? say yes. Then, that
being the case, where is your "Squatter Sow
ereignty?" What has become of this vast
matter of non-intervention by Congress,
which you delight to call Popular Sover.
eisnty?" The truth about it is, it is no.
where.
But again: are the people of territory
free to form and regulate their domestic in.
situations in their own way the same as those
of State, considering the decision of the
Supreme Court to be an obiter dictun, and
of no force? Let us see. Tho government
of a territory, the same as that Of State, is
divided into three departments, viz Execu-
tive, Judicial aud Legislative, which being
co-equal, are each one third Of the whole
First, do the people Of territory, like
those of a State, elect their own Governor :?
No, the President appoints him, which de-
stroys the Executive third of the people s
sovereignty. Do the people of Territory,
like those of a State, elect their own Judges I?
No, they are also appointed by the
President, destroying the Judicial third !;
thus you see too. thirds of the peoples SOW
ereignty is gone, at any rate, leaving the
people to elect the legislative third only
But are they even one-third sovereign with
in themselves? No, the Governor possesses
the power, by 0eto, to neutralize two thirds of
the remaining third, which leaves the people
one-third of one-thirl, or one-ninth soyer-
eign, to form and regulate their domestic in
stitutions in their own way and the Supreme
Court has taken that from them. Then tell
me that non-interyention is a principle worth