Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-09-25
Squatter sovereignty.

We have not yet seen that any press in the
country has done Mr.. Fillmore the injustice OF
saying, or intimatiDg, that he is, or ever was,
in favor of this detestable doctrine-an yet it
would appear, from recent publications in the
Southern prints, that doubts had previously
existed in that section of the country on the
question of whether he is in favor of, or OPP
posed to, "Squatter Sovereignty"
We published in our daily issue of Tuesday
last correspondence between Col Pryor,
of Tenn, and COL Joseph s. Williams, of Louisi
ana, in which Col Williams narrates CONVEX
sation then just held with Mr.. Fillmore on the
subject, and in which the views of Mr.. Fill
more were freely unfolded.
We are gratifed that this correspondence
has been publshed--not that we regarded any
further exposition of Mr.. Fillmore's opinions
beyond what is found in his official action, ne
cessary to full vindcation of the conserva-
tism and nationality of his views, but because
the statements of Colonel Williams confirm
our repeated assurances to our readers, that
Mr.. Fillmore is opposed to this new-fangled
mobocratic demagoguism, and because, also,
the views thus expressed by him to Colonel
Williams, are in perfect harmony with the
principles embraced in the Territorial acts Of
Utah and New Mexico, upon which the came
rican party" noao stands, on the Territorial
questions.
1t should not be forgotten that both the
Wing and Democratic parties, in their Conven-
tons Of 1862, ratified and approved the Com
promise measures Of 1850, and pledged them
selves to maintain them intact--nor can it be
forgotten that Mr.. Fillmore, in his annual mes
sage to Congress, at the session succeeding the
passage of those measures, declared that he
regarded them as ".fnality on the agita-
ting questions embraced therein. With these
points fixed in the memory of our readers, we
ask them to examine the language and princi-
pies Of the Territorial acts Of Utah and New
Mexico, and compare them with the language
uttered by Mr.. Fillmore to Col. Williams, and
with the 7th section of the American platform;
and at the same time, to contrast them with
the provisions of the Kansas Nebraska act Of
1854.
The two acts, creating the Territories Of
Utah and New Mexico, are alike in their
phraseology upon the points in question. We
copy therefore, from the Utah act, approved
September 9, 1850, and published volume 9,
pages 453,-4,-'5, &C., of Little & Browns
edition Of the Laws Of the United States.
After defining the boundaries Of Utah, the
act declares, to wit:
And when admitted "a State, the said Terri
tory, or any portion of the same, shall be received
into the Union, Nth or without slavery, as their
constitution may prescribe at the time Of their adj
mission
Here is the doctrine Of Estate equality
clearly and distinctly stated and "approved''
by Mr.. Fillmore.
So far As this question Of Estate equality
is concerned, and 50 far as Congressional
non-interUestioa with slavery" is concerned,
the legislation of 1860, which Mr.. Fillmore
approved, is just as clear and explicit as the
Kansas Nebraska act of lS54--and by refer
ence to the 7th section of the American plat
form, the same doctrine will be found incorpo
rated therein.