Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-03-03
DAILY VIRGINIAN.
FRIDAY MORNING. MARCH, 3. ls5l.


out most Of the debating talent of the two Hous-
esof Congress. Thus far only one speech in OPP
position has been made by southern member,
fMr. Houston of Texas,) and il is to be hoped for
the credit of southern craftsmanship and loyalty,
no second exhibit m of the kind will be witness
ed. One of the best intellects and strongest
wills which have been brought to bear upon the
question. to its present stage is that of Mr..
Toombs of Georgia. Occupying a somewhat
isolated party position by reason Of the earnest
and exclusive interest which for two or three
years past he has taken in questions of Sec
tional character. he approached the discussion of
the subject with gravity proportioned to the
momentous nature of the principles and conse-
quences involved in it. To employ his own lam
guage he SAID. he came to il with cart full Of
gratitude to a wise Providence, that after n pro-
traeted contest of years, this question about
to have solution not by any temporary expedi
ents. but upon the broad principles Of constitu-
tional justice and right, which were the only
grounds upon which il could be satisfactorily and
permanently settled. In entering upon the dis
cussion, he desired to resemble the Athcnian or
ator. who. before speaking always prayed the
gods that he might utter no word inconsistent
with justice and truth"
After indnlging in severe and well-merited
structures upon the course of the freesoers of the
northern states, and especially the freesoi orators
Sumner and seward-the latter of whom, he said,
while Governor of New York. and sworn to exc
cute the constitution of the United States, rcius-
ed to execute it, on the ground that slave was
not the subject of felonous asportation,
ha ba tla nm.
der four aspects First. that il was MISC, just,
constitutional. and ought to he adopted. See
ondly. that il had received the aoquiesoent appro-
val of nneteen-twentieths of the public sentiment
of the United States. Thirdly he would reply
to the objections to the bill; and fourthly, he
would disproye TINT this bill was departure
from the ancient policy of the Republic, and dis
prove that the ancient policy was the prohibition
of slavery.
In discussing the first proposition he maintained
that the sovereignty over the territories and the
people inhabiting them did not abide in Congress
but in the people. Congress had no such power
given il by the constitution. Sovereignty was
vested in the States and The people Sovereign
ty in the Territories belonged TO the people Of
the Territories. population Of five thousand
in the Territories had the same supreme political
sovereignty they would have, did they number
five millions. 1t might for time be in allegiance,
but il could not be disturbed or denied. The
very first who entered those Territories
covered all over with the same constitution that
covered i'm in any State, and his right to soycr-
eighty as one of the people could not be usurped.
He might not be able to assert and maintain it by
force hut n xvaE NJ tnnph his ~ ba bnd mr..
mics % defendi it. The people of California had
exercised Ibis sovereignty and Congress had adj
mitted their lawful exercise of it. He and 9TH
ers had defended the admission of that State into
the Union because of this great principle of pop
ular sovereignty. He had voted TO apply the
same principle to Utah and New Mexico aud
Congress had affirmed its justice by asserting to
il. No one objected to the constitutionality of
allowing the people to determine questions of
local policy for themselves. Even the advocates
of prohibition admitted that it was constitutional
10 leave il to the decision of the people. IL
was the contrary course of action, the oonstitu-
tioDality of which denied and contested
In his mind there was no question or doubt that
the people who 60 to these territories are vested
at once with complete sovereignty oven them
The sovereignty may be held in allegiance until
Congress assents to its exercise, but that it is all
the time held by the people could not be disput-
ed.
In proof of his second proposition that the
principle had received the approval of nineteen
twentieths of the people, he referred to the fact
that the two great national conventions which
met in Baltimore, in 1852, approved tho COM
promise of 1850, in principle, aud substance, and
solenlnly resolved it to be tinality. lie next
replied to objections that had been made to the
bill, demonstrating that they were futile and fa-
lacious, and then came to his fourth proposition,
namely, that the ancient policy of the govern
ment had been TO interdict slavery. His views,
convincing and irrefutable, we give in his own
words
1t could not be found anywhere that il was the
policy of the founders fthe Republic and trainers
of the Constitution to prohibit Slavery to States
or to restrain it in any shnpe. He quoted a LEI
ter from jefferson to Madison in which the set
Element of the Slavery question bya geograpl.
ical line was sly led a most portenious movement
out of which De Witt Clinton and Rufus King
expected to get their party into power; also from
Madison to Jeferson,and also letter from Jack
son, in which he styled the Missouri Comprom-
Use a rash, despotic, policy act, &c. The Sena-
tor from Massachusetts,on former occasion and
twice on Tuesday last, declared that at the time
OF Washington's Inauguration there was no spot
under the jurisdiction of the u. States where the
flag hoated over one foot of slave territory yir
gina eeded the North West Territory to the II.
States, with the condition that Slavery should be
prohibited. North Carolina ceded the Territory
of Tennessee, with the condition that Congress
should never prohibit slavery there. The first
Congress. under the Constitution accented botb