Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1856-10-22

s IS sses K4lAiGh kAgistr.
sqnattsr sovereignty n-..s alien sqn.ttsf soveF-
eighty "these are the constant party cries Of the
T. N. presses Of the South and they are uttered BY
many who have no sensible definite idea Of their
meaning. = -
What e squatter aosereigntyin II is what the
Democrats call 'populsr sovcignty "-the right Of
the people Of the Territories, while in Territorial
condition, to manage and regulate their own dones-
tic concerns; and their right, when they assume
sovereignty, and frame Constitution preparatory to
admission into the Union to establish or prohibit
African slavery. But the K N presses of the South,
and the abolition presses of the North vie with each
other in denouncing this doctrine, which they call
"squatter sovereignty" The Register asserts that,
"without doubt the Democratic party is in favor of
the odlous and abomnablc doctrine of squatter SOW
eighty that is, the right of squatters on the pub
lie lands to prohibit slavery while in Territorial
condition. That is what the Register asserts. Now
let US see what the facts are One of the resolutions
of the Democratic National Convention is as follows
Resooed That recognise the right of the people of
all the Territories including Kansas and Nebraska acting
of actual residents and the number of their
hab'ants ustiies it, to form Constitution, with with
terms of perfect equality with the other States"
That is the Democratic doctrine on the subject
nothing pore and nothing less This is the doctrine
of Mr. Buchanan announced in his letter Of accep.
on all occasions whether in letters or speeches In
his Sanford letter he says:
In my letter Rerks county, of 25h of August ls47
had said, under the Missouri compromise slavery was
forever north of the parallel of IS degrees 80
be decided by the people What peopes 1do
the people Of tie Territory assembled ncention form,
State constitution and ask admission int the Union and
not the first adcentures first coers ho might happen
to arri0e IN the Territory assembled in public eetinys"
Is not that conclusiver Is not that the very doc.
trine insisted on by these very K. N. papersr Most
assuredly it is and yet they persist in the face of
well-known and notorious proof to the contrary in
their efforts to produce the impression that Nj.
Buchanan is in favor of "squatter sovereignty"
But, say they in reply, the Kansas. Nebraska act
contains this "squatter sovereignty" doctrine. No
such thing We have that act before US, and it ex.
pressy provides in the 10th section, that the Terri
tory of Kansas "when admitted as State, shall be
received with or without slavery, its constitution
may prescribe at the time Of its admission" What
constitution? Why, the constitution framed pre-
paratory to admission, by the majority of actual resi-
dents, embracing the requisite population to form
State.
We have repeatedly shown heretofore that the
people of Territory acting through their Territorial
Legislature, have no power either to create or to
abolish property They can do more than regulate
it. The right to create and the right to abolish
property necessarily presupposes sovereign power;
and Territorial Legislatures far from being
ereign. Even State Legislatures are not sovereign
Conventions of the people can alone establish and
abolish slavery. And where, ask, is an instance
of the exercise Of this sovereign power by the peo.
pie of Territory No instance of the kind can be
found, except in the case of California.
But, if it be true as charged by the X. N. papers,
that the Kansas Nebraska act contains the odious
doctrine Of "squatter sovereignty" then they,
in supporting Mr.. Fillmore, equally to blame with
the Democrats; for the provisions in the Washing
ton Territorial act signed by Mr.. Fillmore, are word
for word the same as those in the Kansas-Nebraska
act If there be "squatter sovereignty" in the Kan
sas act, Mr. Fillmore approved it in the Washington
act But leaving all this out of view, we assert and
we show that Mr. Fillmore in giving his sanction to
the act admitting California 4 State, expressly
approved the doctrine of "squatter sovereignty"
in its most odious aspect! large portion of Cali
forna lies South of SO deg. 80 min. Mr. Fillmore
and his friends-though begged to do it, as Mr.
Badger says-had repeatedly refused to extend this
line, known the Missouri line, to the Pac6c but,
under the auspices of his administration, the people
of Cafornia-the unnaturalized sguatters-embrac-
ing Frenchmen, EngIshmen, Irishmen, Chilians,
Chinese, and almost all the races on the globe,
assembled in convention, without the consent
of Congress, assembled irregularly, in revolu-
tionary manner, prohibited slavery, and recog.
nized State and admitted into the Union Mr.
Fillmore approved the act, regarding it as so much
gained to the North; for large portion Of the Ter
ritory, be it remembered is south of the Missouri
line. This was one of the measures of the =" Com
promise" of 1850, which served to reconcile Mr..
Fillmore to the Fugitive Slave law which. after all,
as the history of that day shows, he signed with SO
much reluctance. This California "squatter sover-
eighty" movement, under the auspices of Mr. Fill
MORE what Mr.. Calhoun, in his last great speech
in the Senate pronounced the Erecatiue Proviso,
and declared it much worse and much more cffen-
sive to the South than the Wilmot Proviso. And
yet observe, by the K. N. presses of the South,
that Mr.. Fillmore has recently had a conversation
with some Southern friend of his, whose letter is
published, in which he, Mr.. Fillmore speaks with
much feeling of his opposition to "squatter
eighty! Hell opposed to "squatter sooereigntyP'-
he the oery soho encouraged and approved 1t in
1850, and who now attempts to throw the odium of
it on Mr.. Buchanan and the Democratic party.
Either Mr.. Fillmore has been unsupported by his
Southern friend, he is guilty himself of dupcity
and hypocrisy.
AS Maj. Wilder amusingly observed in his reply