Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1856-08-18
The Ksnsas biIl--is. Northera face and Ia. se.,i
era f,ce.

OF TENNESSEE.
The Ksnsas biIl-iss Nershers face and Ia. se.,h.
focc.
The regular readers of the Nirginan have had
their attention quite frequently directed to the
opposite constructions put upon the kanses>bill
by the Northern and Southern Democracy I'm
der one of which that measure was defined 10 b.
great act of justice to the South. while under tho
other it was perverted into agency Of free soil.
and held up to the people of the North as the best
Wilmot Proviso ever enacted. Seeing that the So
entagonistio cons,rue ions were ru, upon the Law
We have urged that it constituted just and safe
standard of Southern rights, and that general
approval of it was no evidence Of fidelity 10 the
slaveholding States that we must know where
fore politician approved the measure; under what
Interpretation of its provisions.and with what be
lief to its practical effect before as Southern
men. could take his approval as an assurance
that he appreciated aud would regard the consil-
tutional rights of the sls,ehoding States. We
have insisted that it was particularly important
that before taking any Northern mans approval
of the Kansas bill a guaranty to the South. we
should be informed whether be held that Squatter
Sovereignty. that 'most monstrous proposition
Mr.. Calhoun properly characterized twas e.
tablisbed by it. Th. test the Democratic lead
ers of the South have declined subieciug the,
Northern allies to-from conviction, doubles,
that there none who could stand IT, We hafe
before us a very searching speech delivered in thu
u. 5. Senate, the 25th of last June,by Mr.. Foster
of Connecticut. in which the absurdity Of til.
course is thoroughly exposed. Without further
remark publish an extract from it, calling al
teniion only to the proof furnishes that Senator
Douglas, the author of the bill, is advocate Of
Squa;.es Sovereignty:
Does the great principle ofthe Kansas Nebraska
il as here stated hy its author 10 this report grant
to or recognise the right IN the people Of the Terrific
~ in their Territorial Legislature 10 institute
abolish slavery
There ought surely to be no den ID, how his que.
ton should be answered The great object OF tn
Nebraska bill the of reasons why the prince
pie Of that bill was so great a principle was thai
it made an end Of the slavery question as political
question: i. the final dnality.
Strange rs Il may seem. however, this plain quef-
zion il an swercd and that by the friends OF this grea
principle in totally different ways. In June ls5e
during The debate the Copipromise bill the Sena-
tor from Illinois ayto is now the chairman OF Ii,
Comntte on Tcrritoriest Is reported NJ saying;
Il wish 10 say one word brioro this part of the h,ll
IS voted upon mus> confess that rather rcgreitel
that clanse lad been introduces into this bill pro
vidine hat the TERI oral gorer1meqs shosdHoi iegts
Ia, 81 respect 10 Affscd slarop The position that !
lave taken has heeB that ms and all other qur oa
relating 10 the donesh oi,ts aud dortestic otcg az
bs Territories nuchi to hr et 20 the decision tn
peeple themselves aud that ought to be content
with whatever way they may decide the question. ht
causc they have much deeper interest IA these
tiers than have and know much better what insti-
tutions salt hem than wewho have never been there
can decide tor them.
4Bnt do say that flef, to myself to carry out my
own opinion, would leave the whole subject 10 the
people Of the Territories themselves aud allow them
to introduce abolish slavery as they may prefer
| believe that is the principle which ourinstuon.
rest - Cong Giods, part = vol. q. PIP, Ia ll6
Tnis is sufficiently clear and explicit hut is this the
tgrea; principle of the Nebraska bil,'
The honorable Senator FROM Mississippi, (Mr
Brown ia bis speech the 2sth of Aprou the bill
repor ed hy the Committee Territories 10 uulhur
ize the people of the Territory OF Kansas form II
constitution and state government, said
Il believed when the Kansas bill was passed. that
it conferred the inhabitants of the Territories du
ring their Territorial existence, right to exclude
.or in any wise TO interfere with slavery. | then
thought aud still think il the duty of the law
king power in a feuitoI, to treat all property alike
to give the protection to species Of prop
erty that i give - another
And again: To me 1t Is thcrelare hourcc Of mn
feiVucd satisfaction thar the senator from Illinois lAlr
Douglas has brought forward this bill see IN i,
the germs Of final and lasting setNcmest on frm
and soitd basis. ii carries ont the original design
Of the Kansas ) ebraska act rs | understood il 1t
fixes the period ut whchthe inhabitants OF Terrific
~ may ask It's admission into the Union rs State,
and the report by whichit is accompanied denies nj
sovereignty in the Territory during its Territorial oNl
tence'
III have succeeded in finding 'the great principle
of the kensasNebraska bill which of these opposite
constructions Of it is the correct oue'
If have not yet succeeded in asccriainipg wha
Hthe great principle swa"re else shall look for IL
The honorable Senator from Michigan Mr.. thsS
would doubtless designate II as popular sovereign
ty, "squatter sovereignty Territorial SOVEREIGN
ty' But Of this principle the Richmond Enquire
of the oath of April says:
Among the fair but false and fatal theories Of TIT
day none attracts much homage the ''sqnattc
sovereignty" courtesan There are none so radnu
with meretrcious charms none ready with de
ceitful promise and none so 10 their vie
tins with shame and reproach. The sovereignty o
the people is n noble principle, and should command
universal homage. 'Squatter sovereignty is an i'm
postureand counterfeit copy, ugly idol wrought 10y
mans hands, aud should be kicked off the pedesta
where sits in mock majesty and the adoratol
of fools and demagogues'
| am here again at a loss whether squatter soYer-
eighty unpopular sovereignty is "the great principle,
or whether what is said by the Richmond Enquirer
of that doctrine Is the true construction of the act
ought here perhaps, to say that the honorable Sen
aor from Illinois the chairman of the Committee on
Territories, said the other day in debate that it was
in regard TO the meaning OF the Constitution that the
friends OF that bill differed If that it would
seem TO me that, If bill were TO be passed in order
to define egislatiyely the power oil the inhabitants OF
territory in regard to matters above all others In
terestng to them, it should be and precise
in its language that the act could be unders God by
the people over whom il was 10 operate. Aud thi;
seems to have been the opinion otthe honorable Sen.
ator from Mississippi, whom have just now quoted
he the speech which ! have all