Washington telegraph., 1856-08-20
Mr.. FiIlmore's Position as Regards the
Missouri Compromise.

The article which we intended to pre-
mare for the outside of this weeks issue,
in reference to Mr.. FILLMoRE's position
on the Missouri Compromise, we reserve
for the inside, In order to make room for
the following article from the American
OrGaH, which elucidates several points
upon which We shall be compelled to
touch more fully than we could hope to do:
Wilful Misrepresentation or Consum-
mate Ignorance.
The Richmond Enquirer of the 14th
inst, in an article under the head of Hold
them to the Rack makes use of the fol-
lowing language:
/" Again, the Know Nothing papers are
repuIsei by the principle of Squatter Sow
ereign;y, which they pretend to see in the
Kansas \ ebraska bill. Then why do not
these papers denounce Millard Fillmore,
for he signed the organic act for the Ter
ritorIe5 OF Utah and New Mexico, which
emboiies precisely the same principle of
popullr sovereignty"
1t would perhaps be uncharitable to as
sert that the Enquirer intended to misrep-
resent the truth, in thu statement that the
same principle of '.Squatter Sovereignty"
which is found in the Kansas-Nebraska
act, had been endorsed by Millard Fillmore
In his approval of the act establishing the
Territories of Utah and New Mexico; it
Is far more charitable to suppose that the
statement in the above extract was made
through ignorance, and we are content
that the Enquirer shall have the benefit of
this plea of iJHOrGnce, even though one
moment spent in examining and compar
ing these different acts would have ena-
b!ed that press to give true statement
on the point to which it adverts-
We care not whether the press wllfully
Of ignOrantly asserted that the Utah and
New Mexico act which Nr. Fillmore APP
proved ''embodies precisely The some l'ria-
ciPie Of PQpuiar S0Osreignty as the Kan
sas-Nebraska act That is matter of no
Importance, the true and only point of in
quiry being 1chether Mr. Fillmore approx
ed, in 1850, the principle of ''squatter
Soyereignty,' which is contained in the
kaus1s-Nebraska act ? The Richmond
Enquirer affirns that he did, and We affirm
that he did not, and an exhibition of the
record must decide the issue thus joined.
That clause in the ansas-Nebraska act
which contains the odious ''squatter SOW
ereignty' principle, is found in the 18th
section, and reads.
1T being the true intent and meaning
of this act not to legislate slavery into any
Territory or State, nor to exclude it there
from, but TO Ieace the people hercof, per-
fe=tLy free to regulate their domestic in
stItutiOns In their own way, subject only
to the Constitution of the United States"
We have, on former and recent occa-
sion, discussed the intention OF Congress
in the above sentence, and rendered it
perfectly Obvious that was designed by the
fGamers of that Kansas-Nebraska act. to
InaUgurate '.sguatter sovereignty" and
are referred to the avowalS of General
Cass and others in illustration OF this pur-
pose
The most distinguished advocates of this
neEarious doctrine, indeed, have openly
avOwed that the Kansas Nebraska bill con-
taIns this doctrine, and that it was the
purp0se of those who framed the bill that
1t should establish what the more modest
advocates of the principle Ro,c call pop
utar sOUereigaty."
Mr. Buchanan himself, (who strongly
repudiated this doctrine in his Sanford
letter of August p, 1S4S,) distinctly re-
eognizes this ''s1uatter sovereignty" fea-
ture of the kansas-Nebraska act, in his
letter OF acceptance, avowing 'that the
people of Territory, LIKE THOSE OF A
STATE, shall decide for themselves wheth-
er slavery shall or shall not exist within
their limits Such as the Kansas Nebras-
ka act, and such is the view taken of it by
Nr. Buchanan, as the reflex of the senti-
ments of the Cincinnati Convention Now
then for the Utah and New Mexico act
OF 1850, which Mr.. Fillmore approved
and which the Enquirer says, "embodies
precisely the same principles of popular
how modest y sovereignty"
The Utah act of 1850 may be found
vol 9, p 453 to 45S, United States Stat
u'es at Large, in the 4th section of which
tne following provision, to wit:
AZ NE lars passed by the LsJislatir'
iSse~b,y aRd GoUernor, shall be submit
's' % ths Congress Of the United States
'aa y disGPprorea shall be nall and o
no effect -
Inc very same provision exists in tn,
New Mexico act of the same session.
1t has been said by the anti i-Americar
press and the people have been deceived
py such assertion, that the Kansas Nebras
Aa act contains the same restrictive or su
PervlSlng clause, and that hence the legis
"uVe action of the Territories of Kansa
anu Nebraska could be restrained by Con
srgss, and therefore "squatter sovereign
does not exist in the Kansas-Nebrask
se'-but the assertion is untrue -ther
y 10 such restraining clause in that act