The State guard., 1848-06-13
To THE EDITOR OF THE STATE GUARD,
 WETIrwpK


 prised to see the grounds on which he op- posed the report of the General Commit tee appointed by the Baltimore Conven- tiop, for MT Yancy distinctly avows that he has no objections to that report-save a single instance, that is the report of the majority does not go far enough, he seems to think with his friends from South Caro- lima and Florida, that it only wants this one little short resolution, to make it what it ought to be.
 !" ReSolrcd, Tha: the doctrine of non interference with rights of property of the people of this confederation, be it in the States or in the Territories, any other than parties in CT esled in them, is the true republican doctrine recognised by this body
 Well let us see what the difference really is between the two Resolutions. think it will be conceded by all hands that the difference is so small that it was not worth the harup that MT. Yancy kick ed up in the Convention.
 "That Congress has no power under the Constitution to interfere with or con- trole the domestic institutions of the sev- eral States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of every thing appcrtainng to their ahairs--not prohb- tied by the Constitution that all efforts of the abolition, or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipent steps in re- lation thereto are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous conscquen- ces and that all such efforts have an ine- vitable tendency to diminish the happi- ness of the people and endanger the sta bility and spermanancy of the Union, ought to be countenanced by any friend of our political institution
 Now is there any material difference in point of substance or in point of lact--if there is have not been able to see it, the doctrine of non interference is as clearly set forth by the Convention,as they are by MT. Nancy and his South Caroli- na and Florida friends. If Mir, Yancy and his friends had succeeded in getting in their amendment it is doubtful whe- ther they would have supported the nomi- nee of the Convent on after all, for ,it seems that Gen. Cass holds opinions ad- verse to these gentlemen upon the subject of non interference with regard to Slave ry-we will let Mir. Cass speak for him. self. In December 1647 he gave his views at length upon the Wilmot Provso Sin letter to Mir. Nicholson of Tenncs- see-in that letter he avows himself op- posed to the measure, and to the exercise of any Legislation by Congress over any of the Territories of the United States, lrespecting the domestic relation of their inhabitants--he believes that all ques- tions of that pnature should be settled by themselves, who ought to be allowed to regulate their internal concerns in their own way' and that Congress has no more power to abolisl: or establish Slavery in such Territory than it has to regulate any other of the relative duties of social life that of husband and wife, of parent and child or of master and servant.
 Now Sir, it will be seen at once that Gen. Cass has gone as far to repudiate the Wilmot Proviso doctrine, as l|fr. Yancy. and think little farther MT, Yancy said in his speech in the Conven. ton, "I will answer the delegate from Pennsylvania" Gen. Cass I understand holds that, while Congress cannot inter- fer with Slavery in the States or Terri.o- ries, the inhabitants of Territory, while yet under a Territorial Government may make such regulations as will exclude Slaves from being held in such Territory. The minority of the Committee hold that while in such state or condition, such inha bitants assimilate themselves to a tenancy in common, each has an equal right to enjoy the Territory--with his rights of property, their sovereignty as q people is in abeyance, they possess ten ancy in common, under the rules and reg ulations presented by Congress-and have no rights of sovereignty until they meet in Convention to form Constitution pre- paritory to their admission as State into the Union. In that stage they have an undoubted right to establish or to exclude Slavery as an institution, and not before, before that neither Congress or the inha6i- tants of the Territory can cstablish or erclude Slaoery from the Ierritry."
 Now sir, we must infer from the above quotation, that MT. Yancy admits that Congress has the right to interler with the question of Slavery, so soon as the Convention meets but not belore-but in justice to Mr. Yancy. l cannot allow my self to believe, tha' he believes in any such doctrine, yet in the heat of debate and in his great anxiety to defeat the mo- minee of the Convention, he suffered that nasty expression to escape him--but if I am wrong in my charitable conclusions, and Mir. fancy should still persist, that this is the true doctrine, why then, am bound to say, that he has gone further than any other man, save MT. Wilmot himself and his fierkimer friends in New York and elsewhere, in establishing the Wilmot proviso doctrine. l Well Sir, let us now examine this Ter ritorial question little in detail, and see who it is that has the right to admit or cx- clude Slaves from the Territory. All the democrats as well from the free as from,