Washington telegraph., 1856-07-02
sQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.

cur readers By addressing them with the
presumptu0us arrogance, which marks the
evasivs and self-stuItifying article of the
editors Of the Hampstead Democrat on the
subject of Squatter Sovereignty. in their issue
Of the 9th ult The Democratic view of
the question of Squatter Sovereignty, to
which we originally referred. and our OBJ
iec;ion to which, brought about this contro-
versy, is contained in the following defui-
ton Of the meaning of the term given BY
Gen. Cass:
''He (Gen. C-) held. however, that after
Congress had enabled Territory to assume
Legislative powers, it was not competent for
Congress TO restrain any Legislative act of
such Territorial government under the
Constitution of the u States; and among
such acts be held the admission Or ezciu-
sion of siareTy. This was natural de-
duetiOn from, the principles Of Squatter
Sovereignty"
This was the doctrine against which we
tock ground at first 1t is true, we did not
in OUT columns, when we first drew the at
tention Of our readers to the matter, refer
them to this definition. We took ground
against the principle We were curious to
see what the editors Of the Democrat had to
say about the matter. In their paper of
June tie ID. they arraign Us without qualif~
cation for opposing the doctrine. As
matter Of course, they endorsed it BY that
act. They did not know what they endorsed,
or what they were writing about. or they
never would have done it. We proved this
to them III our article in the Telegraph of
the 18th of juno. For they, if they lave
as much of candor as they have of another
attribute which shall be nameless here. will
sdmit that if they had known they were
endorsing an Abolition measure, they never
would have endorsed it. They have seen
their error, and admit it by skulking the
former issues which we're between them and
the Telegraph, and by making such retreat
as to show to all the world-or at least
that portion of it who took the trouble to
watch their shameless flight, that they were
ron 11iussed-to the recent action of the
Cincinnati convention. Yes, it is Just so.
The questions between you and the Tele-
graph we're: whether man could, as an
advocate of Southern rights, support the
doctrine of Squatter Sove-eignty-whether
the AbOlitionists were in favor of the re-
storatiOn Of the Missouri compromise line
ana its extension, and whether the great
question Of Squatter Sovereignty was to be
the question to be decided by the Cincinnati
convention. And these were the points
you raised yourselves. by boldly asserting
the affirmative Of the propositions contained
IN these questions Intelligent gentlemen
Of your party have acknowledged that We
gained complete victory over you in re-
gard to the two first of your propositions
that we proved your positions to be false
aud untenable-and low. you In your DIS
eOmfture fly off at a tangent, and parade
this:
AT the outset we said that popular SOW
erelgnty and congressional non-intervention
were boldly and distinctly embodied In the
hansasNebraska bill. and a tortiori, this
embodiment being the peculiar guarantee
Of the South would be the great question,
at least, that all other questions would be
Of minor importance. We gave it as our
6elief that the great national Democracy
would incorporate this plank in the new
Platform-HOw far we have erred the i'm
partial reader can judge
'ResoLued, That We recognize the right
ofthe people of all the Territories, including
kausas and Nebraska, acting through the
legally and fairly expressed viii of ma
Jority of actual residents. and whenever the
number of their inhabitants justifes it, to
form a constitution. with or without domestic
slavery. and be admitted into the Union
apon terms of perfect equality with the
other States"
And then, with unblushing effrontery add
aud ask:
Now the above We suppose is what the
telegraph would call 'squatter sovereignty
aud We ask you neig ghbors how dare you
.Jlslrue Sp. this passage TO mean a sovereignty
Tuich can be exercised by the people of the
territory, while it is a Territory, before
suncient number of inhabitants jusrifes it.
81 as 10 conflict with the interest or privi-
ITses OF either one of the States in the
eoOd reeklessness go further >
no" dare zoe construe," &c. Did we
pax two weeks ago with foreknowledge of
@'a' tie Cincinnati convention would do ?
uid We refer to what the Freesoil De-
'acy had done by the incorporation of
f'a''er sovereignty" into the Kansas