Washington sentinel., 1854-06-02

operative and void. That is, perhaps, because
the legislation 1850 was never tavoritc with
meS although ] sincerely rejoice that its friends
place such "a feather in its cap" as incompatl,
bility with the odious line of 36o 3O>. lshould
have much preferred that the notorious "eighth
section" should have been ruled 'inoperative
and void, because it was unjust and unfair TO
q great part of the confederacy, subversiye OF
the equality OF the States, and in violation OF
the Constitution of our country. However,
that is OF but little importance. 1t is matter
of recital, not of substance. love the Ian
guage which the bill uses when it comes etiec-
tually to deal with the aforesaid "eighth sec
| ton" "lnoperative and voidW 1t IS not
admitted to the dignity Of repeal. That would
concede to it . valid and legitimate existence.
No, it is void. BY plain implication, not only
wrong, but unconstitutional; not voidable, but
void, and nullay Admirable words! In
| my humble judgment better could have been
chosen. But pass on.
Two objections have been suggested to the
| Nebraska,Kansas bill, which, if they can be re-
moved, will take--ifno stumbling blocks and
rocks of ofence'-at least difficulties out of the
way of some who are with us on the grand
issue involved. The first is language to in the
bill which is thought to countenance what is
lamiliarly termed "squatter sovereignty or the
right of territorial legislature, to exclude the
| property OF the south from the domain of the
Union. The other is to what is called the Bad
| ger amendment.
Now, as to "squatter sovereignty;" phrase
which use mere for convenience, and certainly
in no unkind or sneering spirit. In common
with at least ninetynine out of hundred ofthe
people Of my State, deny, in the words of one
OF our democratic conventions, that there is
"power either in Congress or territorial leg
islature, which is its creature or anywhere else,
save only in the people of Territory in the
formation Of a State constitution preparatory
| to admission into the Union to prevent the mi
grafton of any citizen Of any State with his pro-
| perty, whether it be slaves or anything else, to
any domain which may be acquired by the
common blood and treasure of the people of all
the States" And Mr.. Chairman, with all re-
spect for those who differ from me, must be
| permitted to say that in the whole range po-
litical truth there is no proposition more plain
and obvious to my mind than the one l have
just announced. cannot even yet comprehend
| how gentlemen can deny power to Congress
and give it to that which is but the breath Of
| its nostrils"-a territorial legislature. So to
| do, is, it seems TO me, not only to scout what
| | had supposed was the perfectly settled maxim
| Of common sense as well as common law non
/
the creator and make the less exceed the grea-
ter. ..a@
| | have not time to argue "squattcr sove-
rcignty" fully, nor is it necessary that | should,
for it is, a new notion, a modern invention,
dating its existence no farther back than 1913,
and until then as unknown TO the practice OF
the government, and the deliberations Of states
men, rs it now is to the Constitution Of the
country. Territories are not States They
cannot exercise the powers of States and their
i inhabitants cannot divest the citizens OF the
United States of the right in and to their iull
and complete enjoyment. Why, in the bill be-
fore u.s. as in all other Territorial bills since the
| foundation of the government, it is provided
| that governors and judges shall be mol chosen
| by the inhabitants of the Territory, but ap-
| pointed by the Executive Of the United States
| We pay their expenses, and no territorial dele
| gate on this floor has vote, which would be
| monstrous, if their organization involved even
| an approach to sovereignty. 1t is undoubtedly
consonant with the spirit Of our institutions to
| allow to the inhabitants of the Territories the
use of all powers which can be exercised by
them consistently with the rights Of others,
and God forbid that | should abate them q
hairs sbrcadth. IMPOSITION is in no sense against
the people Of the Territories; it is entirely to,
| the people Of the States. ! would deny nothing
to the former which could be granted without
the violation Of some. plain right Of the latter
There is no question of popular sovereignty
here. The authority of territorial inhabitants
is restricted, not because of achat they are, but
because of achere they are. Individually, they
are the full equals of the people Of State, but
their organization is the embryo of which q
State is the development. 1t is no more
hardship to them that they cannot exercise in
a territory the powers which they could in a
State than it is to you or me, Mf. Chairman
that our privileges in this Hall are very different
from what they are in our own houses. We
are the same men in both places, but differ
emily situated, and that is all there is about it
| Why, sir, | venture to suggest that it will be
| no great advance on some views which have
been presented, after while to hold that when
the United States has built, and equipped, and
paid for ship of war, the sailors, citizens, and
sovereigns, all may. as the occupants of the
property, and the parties most interested by
virtue of some indefnabe inherent right, de.
termine what shall be her character and dcsti-
| nation; nay more, whether she shall fight for
or against her country. But have said
enough on this point Now comes the ques-
| ton. Is there any such reason in the differ.
ence between myself and some of the friends
Of the Nebraska Kansas bill in regard to
the opinions have just expressed rs should
create division between us in reference to it,
or make me or them hesitate in its support.
/ answer emphatically, there is nothing The
bill gives the inhabitants of Kansas and Ne.
braska all the rights which they possess under
the Constitution and none other, and leaves the
decision of what they are to the courts. That
is the agreement as to territorial sovereignty,
plain as pike staff on the face of the bill, and
fair and honorable as it is plain. What says
the bill:
1t being The true intent and meaning Of this
act not 10 legislate slavery into any Territory
State nor 10 exclude it thercirom, but 10 leave the
people Mereof perfectly free TO form and regulate
their domestic institutions in their own way, sub
jcc only TO tho Constitution of The United States"
Now, is it not clear that if territorial sove-
reignty be in the Constitution, it is in the bill
if not in the Constitution, it is not in the bill?
This is ground and the only ground on which
just men united in opposition to the Missouri re-
stricton but divided as to an incidental question
connected with it, can meet and stand together.
Ifterritorial sovereignty be in the Constitution
hope am patriot enough to yield all opposition
to it, and if it be not, am sure that my friends
who differ from me aboutit are patriots enough
to y;a11 oil n,y of; - An On ua un hand