Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-03-08

CHASE in the U. S. Senate, on the Nebraska bill,
and shall continue it in homeopathic doses until
It is finished. -. !
Regulating their Domestic Institu-
tiOnS."
Under this head the Wing of last week sums
up its objectiC ms to the Nebraska bill. The grand
objection urged is not the question as to the ex-
tension of slavery, but that the bill provides that
the Governor shall have the veto power. We
had supposed that this species of fossil remains
of Wing principles, with its contemporary hum
bugs, such as protective tariffs, U. S. Banks, &c,
&C., had long since gone the way of their pred
ecessors, the alien and sediton laws of Adams,
and the corresponding federalisms Of Alexander
Hamilton; but it seems that here in Portage
county, in tn, State of Ohio, in the year of grace
1854, the Home Companion and Wing, with
penetration that does credit to its editors, has dis
covered that the present discomfeiture of the ma
has been 'ruined'--is all owing to the deplorable
circumstance that the Nebraska bill proposes to
give to the Governor Of that territory the veto
power! 1t is true that the people of the Union
are governed upon the same principle-the Pres
ident has the same authority, and its exercise has
ever proved advantageous to the country and
received the approval of the people. The people
of Pennsylvania, New York, and other States
have delegated to their Governors the same pow
er and authority, and still their respective gov
ho nonoorotic
Now, these Governors are appointed by the
President and are the tools of the administration,
says the Wing. Yet the appontees are confirm
able by the Senate, which is composed of a ma
iority of members from the free States.
But, suppose we assume the most dangerous
phase the subject is capable of presenting. A
STAKEHOLDER is appointed Governor, his entire SYM
pathies are with the institution of slavery; the
Legislature can pass no law that is effectua with
out his approval. Is that territory, in this re.
spect, any less republican than Pennsylvania,
New York, or even the Union! But the section
of Mr. Douglas bill quoted by the Wing has the
following:
at being the true intent and meaning of this act
not to cgisIate slauery into any Territory or State,
nor to eccatde 1t heretrom, hut to leaUe the people
thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their do
meSic institutions an their O,on ,cay ect only to
the Constitution Of the United States"
Hence it will be perceived that it requires an
act of legislation on the part of the territory to
establish slavery. If the Governor be slave
holder, he would not, of course, veto bill estab-
fishing slavery Hence the veto power would be
harmless. But, if he were opposed to slavery,
and should use the veto power to prevent the a
doption Of such law, even those who are now
the loudest in denouncing that power would be
foremost in commenting its exercise.
1t is claimed by some Of the abolitionists that,
if the Missouri Compromise be repealed, by it
the Louisiana law recognizing slavery is revived
in this territory but it will be perceived that the
bill itself repeals the Louisiana law, and leaves
the people of this territory to their free choice
upon the subject. Now, slavery is a creature of
the law, it can only exist by an act of legisla-
ton, and any attempt to egislate slavery into the
territories could not be aided by the veto power,
but might be prevented. We would rather see
the officers Of the territories elected by the people
thereof, and believe that to be the true principle.
The Wing says that the veto power in this in
stance is unlimited. We do not so understand it.
Its exercise would only be warranted in cases
where the acts ofegislation are not in conformity
to the Constitution of the United States and it is
for this purpose alone, we suppose, that the bill
provides that the Governor and Congress shall
have supervisory power over territorial legis-
lation. A Governor of Nebraska could not veto
a bill prohibiting slavery, for the very act that
authorizes him to exercise the veto power ex-
pressy says that Congress shall not "legislate
slavery into any Territory or State, nor exclude
it therefrom, but lGve the people thereof perfectly
free to form and regulate their domestic institutions
in their oasa aOay,' &c. Now. if this act designed
that the Governor should dictate this that form
Of of"reguatiDg their domestic Institutions" then,
what is meant by the language just quoted!
HARDWARE ESTABLISHMENT. RICHARD