Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-03-04
DAILY VIRGiNfiN.
SATURDAY MORNING.. MARCH 4 1854.



last Monday. Gen. Cass made three hour'
speech upcn the ensrossing topic of the day
He ayowed his determination b support the bill
bat arrived at that conclusion by process O
reasoning somewhat different from that gone
through with by other Senators He took oc-
casion TOO reiterase his doctrine of "squatter ov.
ereignty's--a doctrine against which Virginia and
the South are as firmly committed as against
the Winsct Previso. He said he preferred the
bin as originally reported, without the repeal OF
the Misseati Compromise, to its present shape.
He did not wish to disturb that settlement un-
necessarily, particularly as Southern Senators
had all ayowed that il only an abstraction,
the South having no hope Of slavery going to the
Territories The Missouri Compromise had in
its dav effected the settlement di exciting and
dangerous controversy, and he would not have
proposed to disturb it.-but the proposition hay
ing been made, he would bave 10 act on It,
He made a long argument ia support of his fire.
uently asserted doctrine that all political soYe-
reipnty in Territories was in the people thereof,
ard not in Congress. He denied the doctrine of
southern Senator's. that undeu the equality Sc
.ourad hy the Cor stitutan b. all citizens slave.
holders had she right TO carry slaves To the Ter
ritories. and the local Legi slaiare had no power
to exclude them. Territory had now "a twofold
imeaning-onc as applied to land or public do
main. the other rs 10 political organization over
the latter Congress had no power. Over tho form
er Congress was sovereign and all laws relating
To the former was as absolute in public domain
within State limits as in Territories. II the right
of shareholders 10 take their slaves and settle
them on public aomHin was secured by the Con-
stitution, why could not they 60 with their slaves
and settle upon public domain OF tho United
States IN Ohio or Other States, as wei as in the
Territories. II il was right secured by the
Constitution 81 the United States. no State law
or Constitution could set il aside He argued
that the idea that slaves Indispensable to
the comfort OF Southern people renewing else
where could mot be maintained for a moment
The territory acquired from Mexico now, so
far as Congressional action is concerned, in ex-
actly the same condition respecting slavery as il
was when acquired. The prohibition of 1t in
California was not the act of Congress, but by
the exercise If the right of the people there 10
determine the question for themselves. Slayehol-
ders had no more right 20 complain OF inability to
take their property there, than Northern men
who could not remove their farms, nor thoir cor
porate franchises, nor many OF their nearest and
fenderest attachments with them To the Territories
or to California, Northern and Southern people
were alike compelled TO turn their property into
money, and thus remove il. When they got to a
were entitled to do and have all things allowed to
other citizens in those communities. This was
the equality secured by the constitution. He
read statistics showing how comparatively few
were Shareholders. Slavery evil, but he
was for leaving it with the southern people, and
using no reproaohes The south too sens-
tive, and sometimes required OF northern men too
much. He had voted against the provisions in
the fugitive slave act, for the abuse of habedS
pus, and for trial by jury of the slaven the place
where captured but he had urged the simple
provision that on the return of the slave TO the
south, he should have jury trial if he asked it.
This, the south unanimously refused, and there-
fore il was, he had refused To vote for the bill
The south had no liberation for northern man
who did not go for all they demanded lie would
vote for this bill. He believed the Missouri pro-
hibition unconstitutional, but as il to be re-
pealed he would prefer 10 declare il unconsttu-
tiona and therefore repeal IL. Unless this mat
ter was declared decided upon Constitutional
grounds, il would never be settled in the public
mind. His doctrine of Congressional non nter-
vention had once been denied by Calhoun and
the whole South. He had lived to see it adopted
as the only safe shield to the Constitution
Though he would not offer any amendments IL
the bill, If others offered them to carry out the
principle of popular sovereignty by giving the
people of the Territories the right to select then
own officers he would vote for them. He met the
objection that if Congress had no power over the
Territories, how could it delegate il TO the Terri
torial Legislature, by asserting that Congress
could delegate many powers il could not exercise
1t could authorize the people Of Territories I,
call Convention and frame a State Constitution
while it could not exercise that power.
He elaborated all these points at eonsidcrabl,
length.