Eastern times., 1855-10-25
What good can come of the Fusion
Party?

The Suffolk county democratic committee
of Massachusetts, have recently uttered "An
appeal TO Democrats and Union men against
Northern Fusion and Sectionalism.'' 1t is,
as says the Boston Post, strong, well put,
noble paper, and will rank among the ablest
OF the productions of its author, Hon. BENJA-
SnN F. HAILErT. We ecopy an extract from
this Appeal but lis so good we hardly know
where to begin or where 10 stop. 1t should
be scattered broadcast over all New England :
And to what good end can this new fu-
sion party come Even if the whole people
of the north should consent to come down to
this one idea of resisting the admission of new
slave states, it would be simply contest for
an impossibility under the constitution. Its
basis is false, because il denies to the new
state thus attempted TO be restricted in its SOW
ereignty, equality with the old states. 1t is
impracticable, because if congress of north
ern abolitionists, with like executive, should
compel territory to exclude slavery from its
constitution, as condition precedent of ad-
mission into the Union, the people of the new
state could instantly change its constitution
and establish slavery, and there is no power
in the nation to Interfere Herewith.
There is nothing new in this one idea which
the fusion party now claim TO be paramount
The Hartford convention tried it and wrecked
the federal party. We went all over this an
ti-slayery dogma in the Wilmot proviso, and
beat them on it north and south. The nation
al idea of the people of this whole country will
always repose in its conservatism, upon the
only sound solution of the slavery question,
NoN-INTERFERENcE BY CONGRESS IN STATE
AND TERRITORY.
Hence the difference between the democrat
ic party of the whole Union, and the sectional
party of anti-slavery, rests on the fundamental
principle of the right of self-government inhe-
rent in the people of every legally organized
political community under the constitution !;
and thus this anti-slavery issue is an issue
made up outside of the constitution, and out
side of the Union-and this makes the sec
tiOnal quarrel between states. and the section
al quarrel about territories.
Formerly it was attempted to be applied to
Louisiana, Missouri, Florida, Arkansas, Tex
as. Just now it happens to be about Kansas
The abolition propagandsts of Massachusetts
began the contest by the Incorporation of aid
emigration societies, not so much to settle Kan
sas as to make Kansas an abolition state
The slavery propagandists Of Missouri got up
combinations TO invade the territory and make
it slave state Both are alike disre garding
the true principle of the Nebraska bill, which
leaves the final adjustment of the slavery ques-
iion there, as purely local issue, to the actu-
al and permanent settlers. There are wrong
headed men on both sides, and personal rights
are violated, but it is a local difficulty and not
a national concernment. The States or the
United States cannot take sides and interfere
any more than they could with the Lynch law
of California or the know-nothing mob at
Louisville. These local evils work out their
own cure, without a resort to civil war. a.na
Yet the anti-slavery men rail at the Presi-
dent for not sending army to Kansas TO dis
solve the legislature and hang the Missouri
iuterlopers! They know better. They know
that the President is not despot, and has no
power to invade state or territory with stand
ing army. But they say he called but the
military to enforce the fugitive law in Boston.
So did Washington in the whisky rebellion in
Pennsylvania. ~
The President is sworn to exclude the laws
of the Union and when process under law
of the United States is resisted, his duty in.
terposes the necessary military force in aid Of
ihe civil process. But no legal process under
law of the United States is resisted in Kan
sss. No marshal or governor or legislature
has called for an armed posse TO enforce law,
or the militia to repel foreign invasion or sup