Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-01-12

tations? But the other day, (Jan. 3d.
Gen. CAss, in the Senate of the United
States, declared, in relation to this act:
Linaintain that the people of every organi-
zed Territory, possessed of a Legislature, have
the right, through such Legislature, to regulate
ali the relations of domestic life, those of pa
rent and child, of husband aud wife, and, OF.
master and sci want, and of all similar condi-
TONS and to Introduce or abolish sLd0egy os MI
IN as tie people Of a State; and that the change
from Territorial to State government does
not enlarge, or diminish, or change this power
of legislation ! consider IL an essential ut
tribute of tie right OF man to govern himself,
without interference elsewhere; that great
American principle, human indeed, nicknamed,
in these days Of progress, not always forward,
squatter Sovereignty, which neither ridlcule nor
renroach. neither hard words nor opprobriOas
epthets, can drive from the hearts of the
American people, enshrined as it there is by all
the glories OF The past, by all the blessings of
The present, and by ali the hopes OF the future.
And GEORGE w. JONES, of this State,
announced in the House of Representatives
on the 18th December last, that
..In his opinion the Kansas and Nebraska
act recognized the full force and power, in all
its vigor. of the right Of the people Of the
Territories to legisIate 0cer this subject PRIOR
TO THEIR ORGANIZATION AS A STATE
GOVERNMENT, as fully and as completely
as was recognized the power of the people OF
the States over the subject of all domestic
questions not delegated to the Government.
Gentlemen might call what they pleased,
non intervention, squalter sovereignty -it was
power of the people, which they had never
delegated to the Government; and, in his opin-
ion, they, and they alone, should exercise 1t,
AS WELL WHILE IN A TERRITORIAL
CONDITION AS IN A STATE GOVERN
MENT.
On the other hand, Mr. j. CLANCY JONES,
the author of the resolution adopted by
the democratic caucus in Washington at
the opening of Congress, pledging the par
ty to maintain and defend the principles OF
the Nebraska-Kansas act, understands
them to mean quite different thing. In
the House of Representatives on the 2lst
ult., he states bis views thus:
81 believe the General Government has no
power TO confer upon the people of Territory
jurisdiction upon the subject of slavery, as to
its establishment or abolition under the Con-
stitution, except to be exercised in one s0ay,
and that way is, as / have said, through their
organic Ldac, lohen they come and ask admission
into the Union. Congress has no power over
the subject, except AS landed proprietor; and
in virtue Of that power they have no right to
make general regulations touching the exis-
tence of slavery"
Between these distinguished democratic
leaders there is wide difference of opinion
as to the meaning of the principles of the
Nebraska-Kansas act. The great body of
the Northern Democrats, coincide with
Gen. CAss, whilst the great body of South
ern Democrats coincide with Mr.. JONES of
Pennsylvania. Should the doctrines of the
former be recognized as the true faith the
Southern STAKEHOLDER will stand no chance
of retaining his slave property in any terri
tory which the abolitionists may determine
to make free territory. But should the
of Mr. JONES of Pa, pre-
vail, the Southern STAKEHOLDER will be Sc
cure in his rights-if deprived Of his pro-
perty it will be by those having lawful au-
thority to do so. The convention whilst
profuse with pledges, and apparently
bold in stating its position, lodged this is
sue 1t failed entirely to place on record
its understanding of the principles of the
Nebraska-KansaS act. Why did it thus
evade solemn obligation to the South?
for great political contest in
which the subject must necessarily form
one of the principal topics Of debate, why
did it leave its position questionable? Was
there anything like desire to secure
Presidential candidate from Tennessee at
the bottom of this failure to perform a
high duty?
We must here bring our remarks for to-
day to II close. We may have something
to say tomorrow iii regard to the remain
ing portion Of the platform.