Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-16

and several speeches were delivered not con-
nected with this subj ect.
CONGRESSIONAL NON-INTERVEN-
TON.
1t is with us matter of rejoicing that every
mail that comes, brings US, from all sections of
the country, able arguments and earnest ap-
peals in behalf of the Nebraska bill. The true
and conservative press of the north, south.
east. and west all join in giving hearty and
cordial support to the principles of the Nebras-
ka bill, as final and equitable settlement of
the slavery question. Now and then we find a
paper violent in its opposition; but, as gene
raj thing, wherever we find opposition, there al
SO we find aboitionism and sectionalism. We
find the papers opposing the Nebraska bill
generally conducted by men conspicuous for
nothing but their love of agitation and discord;
men who have always followed such leaders as
Messrs. Seward, Summer, Chase, Rantoul,
Greeley, and Giddings. We are of those who
believe that in free country the press is the
true exponent of public sentiment; and, be-
heving this, we are fully assured that the loyal
and patriotic people throughout the Union are
in favor of the non-intervention principle, as
the only just settlement of the question of
slavery.
This principle of non-intervention is not at
all new one; it is as old as the government it
SELF 1t is founded in the doctrine of strict con-
struction, which is the great safeguard of the
rights of the States and Of the liberties of the
people. 1t is coeval with the Constitution,
which declares that the powers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people, and that
" the citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all the privileges and immunities of citizens in
the several States" 1t is strange doctrine,
tuition, that one State in this Union has right
to decide whether or not it will have slavery,
and that the people of another State cannot
have the right to judge for themselves in
matter SO deeply interesting to them.
If the people of Virginia, and Of Massachu-
sets, and of California have right to decide
whether they will or will not have slavery, why
is it that under Constitution that guarantees
to each Of the States equal rights and priyil-
eyes, that the people of Nebraska and Kansas
cannot determine for themselves the same ques-
ton when they form State government?
And how can they exercise that right freely
and without coercion, unless non-interven-
ton prevails during their territorial pupiage?
If slavery is excluded from territory by
Congressional action, that action settles the
question of slavery when the territory becomes
State, and the right OF the people of the ter
ritory to determine the character of their in
stitutions by their State constitution is cheat
and a delusion--a shadow without substance.
Do the advocates of restrictive policy hold
that State constitution which allows slavery
within its limits is anti-republican, and there
fore contrary to the provisions Of the Consti-
tuition, which guarantees to every State repub-
lican form of government" If so, how is it
that, at the formation of the confederacy, every
one Of the States recognised the institution of
slavery? The men who framed the Consttu-
ton surely understood It's provisions; and if it
had been unconstitutional to admit slave-hold-
ing States, then States holding slaves could not
have entered the Union.
The very fact of slave-holding States having
been admitted into the Union utterly refutes
any such doctrine. If it is contrary to the
Constitution for a State to recognise slavery,
then Congress must require not only that Me-
braska and Kansas and the States west of the
Mississippi and north Of $50 30< shall not be
admitted with slaves, but they must also enact
and require the southern slave-holding States
to abolish slavery.
Has anybody the boldness to advance such
proposition? And yet it is plain that, under
Constitution that secures equal rights to the
citizens of every State, that if slavery be pro-
hibited by Congress in one State, it cannot be
allowed in another, and rice rersa. If slavery
be allowed in one State under the Constitu
ton, it must be allowed in all.
The Constitution makes no geographical dis
tinction, but declares plainly and unequivocaly
that each State shall enjoy equal rights and
privileges. The abolition press, headed by the
National Era, the New York Times, and T,i.
Juae, charges that the friends of the Nebraska
bill wish to hurry it through Congress without
due deliberation, and against the win of ma
jority ofthe people Of the country. A desperate
case requires desperate expedients, and there
fore we are not at all surprised at this efrontery
on the part Of press that was never yet known
TO advocate anything national or for the benefit
OF the country, nor to allude but in terms Of
bitter denunciation to one portion of the con.
federacy. We do not wish to push this bill
through Congress against the will of the people,
That will has been expressed in favor Of the