Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-07-10

and destruction of the spirit Of the Constitutioa,
which Il could not survive for moment
We have never seen before, in the same
space, a combination Of pusrility and audacity
equal to the above.
at does not follow Says the Enquirer) that
because Congress may legislate for the protec-
ton of slavery in the Territories, that 1t may
legislate for its abolition" Does Mr. Buchan-
IN, in the Sanford letter, limit the control Of
Congress over slavery in the Territories, to its
protection' No such thing Again, says the
Enquirer, Indeed the very fact that power is
reserved to the Federal Legislature to protect
property within the Territories, implies that
Congress has no power to destroy it." Where
is the reservations of that powerp 1t is not to
| be found on the face of the Federal Constitu-
ton, nor does Mr.. Buchanan speak of such re-
servationl But again, says the Enquirer,
"The sovereignty of the Federal Government
| over the common territory is Absolute, just as
it is absolute in respect to any other subject
matter in its legitimate jurisdiction" &c, &c.
| Put pin there. Mr.. Buchanan claims that
the subject of slavery in the Territories is one
over which Congress has exclusive juris-
dicton,, and therefore upon the Enquirer's own
showing, Mr.. Buchanan properly claims that
this power is absolute in Congress. f
The Enquirer proceeds in the above extract
to lay down sundry other kindred positions,
which, in themselves may be be admitted as
orthodox, and it seeks to create the belief that
| such are the opinions of Mr. Buchanan, when,
in truth, his opinions promulgated in the Sand
ford letter are the very opposite of those which
the Enquirer advances. It must be borne In
| mind that the question now to be solved, is
not what are the legitimate powers of Congress
over the subject of slavery in the Territories
but the question is, sohat did James Buchanan
mean by the declaration fret quoted in this
article as to the sovereign and exclusive power
of Congress over the subject Of slavery in the
Territories ?" Did he mean precisely nothing
at aHs Did he mean, as the Enquirer says
that Congress has the power to protect slavery
in the Territories, bat no power to prohibit it
or to exclude it from the Territories This
was not his meaning, and the Enquirer kDoos
it. He meant by sovereign power" that
there is no power above or beyond that Of
Congress, on this question, and he meant by
exclusive power" that no political body but
Congress possessed any authority over the
subject Of slavery in the Territories
Does the Enquirer want proof that Mr.. Blu
chanan distinctly recognised the power.of Con-
gress to prohibit and erclude slavery from the
Territories9 1t has that proof in the first four
lines of the quotation made from the Sanford
letter, to wit:
Having urged the adoption of the Missouri
Compromise, the inference is irresistible that Con-
gress in my opinion, possesses the power to legs-
late upon the subject Of slavery in the Territories"
In other words, he says Haoing urged the
prohibition Of Slavery IN all the Territory
north Of 3o IL degrees not embraced aoithin
the State of Missouri, the inference is IRE
sistible that Congress, IN my. opinion, pos
sesses the posoer TO prohibit Slavery in the
TeYritoriesi 5ss. oJs# 5000
Could Mr. Buchanan Gas he did, have urged
the adoption Of the Missouri Compromise line,
and the extension of that line to the Pacific
Ocean, and yet not affirm the power of Con-
gress to prohibit slavery in the Territoriesf
Why that very Compromise act did expressly
prohibit slauery IN all the Territories lying
north of SO IL degrees Mr.. Buchanan would
have violated his own oath, and encouraged
others In violating their oaths, |" to support the
Constitution Of the United States" in voting
to prohibit slaoery north Of 86 IL degrees, if
he thought Congress had no constitutional
power to prohibit slavery in the Territories
We suppose that it will not be denied that if
Congress had the constitutional power to pro-
hibit slavery north of SO IL degrees, it has
the same power to prohibit it south Of that
line, and hence Mr. Buchanans claim of " SOW
ereign and exclusive power in Congress over
the subject Of slavery in the Territories" has
no limit either Of latitude or longitude, but is
as broad and comprehensive as the present
Republican doctrines of Seward, Greeley, and
Giddings
We entertain no doubt whatever that Mr..
firmed to Mr.. Sanford in 1s48, that in his
opinion, Congress possessed the power to
legislate upon the subject Of slavery in the
Territories, and that such power was "sover-
eign and exclusive in Congress" He was
doubtless equally sincere and honest then, in
denouncing "squatter sovereignty" and in
pronouncing it an "a6surdity." B1t Mr.. Blu
chanan represents the foreign Democracy, and
when they change, he thinks it his duty to
change also. He confessed, in his letter of ac-
ceptance, that he was "no longer James Bt-
chanan," but the re1aer of the Cincinnati Con-
vention; and he must assume as many shapes
as Proteus, and exhibit as many hues as the
chameleon, or prove faithless to the obligations