Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-27

is asserted by the Southern press II was as
serted in ls4s and 1850 by Southern states
men throughout the controversies OF those
wears. In ls4s, Mr. Calhoun Indignantly
secuted the idea that the People Of Oregon
had the right to prohibit Slavery; and ne
argued that the sovereignty Of the Territories
prior to the organization of regular State
Government, resides in the People Of the sew
eral and respective States Of the Confederacy"
In his famous speech, made March 4th, 1850,
he said
ain claiming the right for the inhabitants,
instead Of Congress to legislate for the Terrific
ries. the Executive Proviso assumes that the
sovereignty over the Territories is vested In the
former; or, to express it in language used IN
a resolution offered by one OF the Senators
from Texas, General Houston,) have the
same Inherent right of self.gOvernment rs the
People in the States The assumption IS ut
teriy unfosnded, unconstitutional wafhoM en-
ample, and contrary to the entire practice Of the
Government, from its commencement 10 me
present time, as shall proceed to shosO"
Mr.. Westcott, of Florida, following on the
same side said:
aThe people of Territory said Mr.. West
cott of Florida. in most elaborate argument
on this question, aby which mean those rec
ognised as citizens Of the United States, residing
IN such Territory, cannot exercise any OF the
sovore;un pnwars that pertain to q soysseig1.
and Independent State, except such as are abb
solutely necessary to the preservation OF the
peace and good order Of society" 1Until they
form and organize their sovereign State Gov
eminent, their rights Of sovereignty are DOR
mant and in allegiance" Yes, sir, this thing
YOU create and call Territorial Government,
Is mere temporary, fugaci0us, local police
institution--a limited dependent, municipal
corporation, similar to those existing in coun-
ties, cities, parishes, towns or boroughs, incor-
porated by our State Legislatures" The in
stitution of domestic servitude is political
institution it il not mere municipal regula.
tom
Such was the doctrine of Col. JEFFERSON
DAVIS, now member Of the present Admins
tration, and committed to the support Of the
Bill before the Senate. He repudiates the ex-
istence Of popular sovereignty in the People
Of Territory, and denied their right to legs-
late for the exclusion Of Slavery. This is
matter Of record. In 1850, the following por-
ton Of the 10th section Of the Bill being under
confederation
aThat the Legislative power of said Territory
shall extend to all rightful subjects OF legisla-
ton consistently with the Constitution Of the
United States and the provisions Of this act;
but no law shall be passed interfering with the
primary disposal Of the soil, or to introduce or
avaI,,da frsoon Slau -
Col Davis moved the Proviso,
9That nothing herein contained shall be
construed so as to prevent said Territorial
Legislature from passing such laws as may be
necessary for the protection of the right Of
property Of every kind which may have been,
or may be hereafter, cenformably to the Con-
stitution Of the United States, held in or intro
duced into said Territory"
The meaning Of the Proviso was this. 1t
was contended by Northern Senator'S and by
Messrs. Clay and Benton, that the Mexican
law, prohibiting Slavery, continued in force in
the Territories. Under such circumstances, it
was proposed to exclude all action pro or con
on the subject by the Territorial Legislature.
Mr. Douglas was in favor of that COURSE Mr..
Davis seemed willing to assent to this, but only
on condition of the adoption Of Proviso, that
by recognising the existence Of Slavery in the
Territories, in virtue Of the Constitution Of the
United States would virtually supersede the
Mexican Laws, or affirm their invalidity.
@The right of property of any kind /" aheld or
introduced into the Territory, conformably to
the Constitution Of the United States,o was
simply circumlocatory phrase for Slavery.
The sentiment embodied in this form Of ex-
precision is of course held by Colonel Davis
now, and he finds nothing repugnant to it in
the l4th section of the Nebraska Bill, which
proposes to leave the People Of the Territory
free to regulate their own domestic concerns,
asubject to the Consultation Of the United
Statesp
Mr. Douglas rather regretted the intrOduc-
ton Of the clause in the Compromise Bill,
which Mr.. Davis sought to amend. In reply
to him. MIR. Davis said
"Thc difference between that Senator and
myself consists in, who are People? The
Senator says that the inhabitants of Terri.
tory have right 70 decide what their institu-
lions shall be. When By what authority
How many Of themf Does the Senator tell
me, a. he said once before, from the authority
of God? Then one man goes into Territory,
and establishes the fundamental law for all time
TO come. That is the doctrine, car
ried to its fullest extent | claim, that q
People, having sovereignty over Territory,
have power to decide what their institutions
shall be. The difference, then, be.
tween the Senator from Illinois and myself is
the point ut which the People do possess and
may assert this right. II is not the inhabiiants
Of the Territory, but the People, as political
body, the People organized, who have this
right; and, on becoming State, by the author
ity Of the United States, exercising authority
over the Territory, they may establish funda-
mental law for all time TO come"
These are the opinions Of Mr.. Davis now.
He is a member Of the Administration bold,
determined man, always consistent in his pro-
slavery creed The Administration sustains
the Nebraska Bill Mr.. Davis is earnest in its