The Belmont chronicle, and farmers, mechanics and manufacturers advocate. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1848-1855, 1854-03-31


meeting of Saturday was prepared to express
upon any subject. When the citizens Of
Old Belmont speak upon this subject it will
be in different srain. They believe in, g.
concede the right Of states to make their
own local laws, and are in favor Of having
the troublesome subject Of slavery taken from
the hands of Congress and left where it OF
right bclongs-io the people, as well of the
Territories as of the Stetos.-Gas. d Cit. of
last ,pcct.
We grant part OF the above, neighbor, &
only part. We admit that the people of
'Old Bemonr do "beleve in and concede the !
right of states to make their own local laws" |
but does the Nebraska Bill recognise that
right! We will see. ,..
In the first place Governor is to be
chosen; his duty is to execute the laws, act
as commander in chief Of the military forces,
exercise general supervision in the Territory,
&c: Is he elected by the peoplol By no
means!
There is Secretaryto to be appointed to
record aud preserve the laws, transmit copy
of the same to Congress, and in the absence
of the Governor to assume his position. Is
he elected by the people of the Territory!
Not at all!
The judicial power of the Territory is to
consist, among other tribunals, ofthe Supreme
Court, which is composed of chief justice,
and two associate justices. Are these
iunctionaries elected by the people! No such
thing!
There are also an Attorney and Marshall
to be chosen, neither ofwhich have the people
the least voice in electing. In the choice of
all these officers the people of the Territory
are not even consulted about their choice of
men. The offices must all be filled by the
President, acting by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
True there is a Legislative Assembly,
elected by the people, but when elected what
are they! If Congress does not approve of
their enactments they are "to be declared
null and of no effect" Is this giving the
people the rights they are entitled to! Does
this carry out the doctrine of popular sove-
reignty! Are people, the free people of the
North to submit to such government! "The
citizens of Old Belmont" would not, we feel
assured.
The foregoing considerations, it will be
seen, are separate and apart from the slavery
question, or the. .inviolabity of ladan treaties.
The main argument of the followers of Mr..
Douglass is that the people have the right to
govern themselves. An argument which
would stand better on the opposite isidc of the
question. One reason why we oppose the
Nebraska Bill is because it does not leave the
government of the Territory entirely to the
: people orthat Territory. The foregoing facts
we have laid down to show the folly of as.
suming that the Nebraska Bill leaves the
government entirely to the people. 1t is
, woful ignorance, (perhaps worse,) in any one
, who claims this for it.
"'The sentiments of the citizens of Old
Belmont will be in different strain" will
they? Let us see then what a different
strain is. The Missouri Compromise brought
in Missouri as slave state-slavery there
fore exists in that State by act Of Congress-
At the same time and by the same instru-
ment, slavery was prohibited in the
Louisiana purchase north of SO 80 minu-
ties, north latitude. If that restriction is to
be taken off, justice to the North demands
that the whole Compromise should be set a.
side, and Missouri kicked out of the Con-
lederacy. But this cannot be done, there
fore it is an act of lreachery to the North to
set aside its part Of the Compromise. "The
citizens Of Old Belmont" are in favor of
setting aside that restriction, and opening a
Territory to slavery i,oelve Times as large as
The STATE Of Ohio, are they!
The "aleeting of Saturday" expressed
views opposed to the violation Of Indian
treaties existing over this Nebraska Territory. |
BY these treates--consummated by Gen.
JACKSON, and acquiesced in by all parties until
now-this Territory was given to the red
men for homes and hunting grounds forever
Arc the people of Belmont in favor of setting
aside these treaties! We should be afraid to
say they were.
The Anti-Nebraska meeting at Columbus.
This Convention was, for the time Of wear,