Page:History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century Volume 1.djvu/530

---

364

HISTORY

---

years to represent Iowa in the United States Senate, to take the place of George W. Jones, the last Democratic member of that body from Iowa.

State Senator Samuel J. Kirkwood, as Chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations, himself lately a Democrat, but also one of the founders of the Republican party, reported a series of resolutions, preceded by a lengthy preamble reciting the principal points made by the Governor and concluding with the following declarations:

“Resolved, That we still recognize and sustain the time honored doctrines taught by the early fathers of our political faith, that freedom is the great cardinal principle which underlies, pervades and exalts our whole political system; that the Constitution of the United States does not in any way recognize the right of property in man; that slavery as a system is exceptional and purely local, deriving its existence and support wholly from local law. “Resolved, That the State of Iowa will not allow slavery within her borders, in any form or under any pretext, for any time, however short, be the consequences what they may.”

Lincoln Clark, a distinguished ex-member of Congress, on behalf of the Democratic minority, made a lengthy report, from which the following extracts will show the position of his party in Iowa at this time on the slavery issue:

“The power of Congress to govern the Territories is nowhere expressly given in the Constitution, neither can it be logically or fairly deduced from any power therein contained.

“It is true that the General Government holds the Territories in trust for all States alike—their interests are common—their rights are equal; and the General Government, as an impartial and honest trustee, is bound to see that those rights are not on one hand invaded, nor on the other monopolized. The Governor affirms that because the Court below had not jurisdiction, therefore the Superior Court had none to revise the case upon all that was embraced in the record.

“The Court did not stumble from the question of jurisdiction in the Court below, to the consideration of the more substantial portion of the case. They carefully considered whether they had the power to investigate and adjudge the whole case after that point had been made and argued.