Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-07-16
Wiifui Misrepresentation or Consummat,
Ignorance.

=
Wiifui Misrepresentation or Consummate
Ignorance.
The Richmond Enquirer of the 18th inst,
in an article under the head Of Hold them to
the Rack" makes use Of the following Ian
guage, to wit 7
again, the Know-Nothing papers are repulsed
by the principle Of sqnatter sovereignty which
they pretend to see in the Kansas-N Nebraska bill.
Then why do not these papers denounce Willard
Fillmore, for he signed the organic act for the
Territories of Utah and New Mexico, which en-
bodies precisely the same principle of popular
sovereignty"
1t would perhaps be uncharitable to assert
that the Enquirer intended to misrepresent the
truth, in the statement that the same principle
of "squatter sovereignty" which is found in
the Kansas Nebraska act, had been endorsed
by Willard Fillmore in his approval of the act
establishing the Territories of Utah and New
Mexico; it is far more charitable to suppose
that the statement in the above extract was
made through ignorance, and we are content
that the Enquirer shall have the benefit Of
this plea of ignorance, even though one mo-
ment spent in examining and comparing these
different acts would have enabled that press to
give true statement on the point to which it
adverts.
We care not whether that press wilfully or
ignorantly asserted that the Utah and New
Mexico act which Mr.. Fillmore approved SEM
bodies precisely the same principle Of popular
souereignty" as the Kansas Nebraska act
That is matter of no importance, the true
and only point of inquiry being whether Mr.
Fillmore approved, in 1850, the principle Of
so latter sovereignty" which is contained in
the Kansas Nebraska actP The Richmond
Enquirer afirms that he did, and we affirm
that he did not, and an exhibition of the record
must decide the issue thus joined. That clause
of the Kansas Nebraska act which contains the
odious "squatter sovereignty" principle is
found in the l4th section, and reads
1t being the true intent and meaning of this
act not to egislate slavery into any Territory or
State nor to exclude il therefrom but to leave the
people thereof perfectly free to regulate their do
mestc institutions in their own way, subject only
to the Constitution of the United States
We have, on former and recent occasion,
discussed the intention Of Congress in the
above sentence, AMI rendered it perfectly OBJ
vieus that it was designed by the trainers
of that Kansas Nebraska act to inaugurate
"squatter sovereignty" and are referred to the
avowals of Gen. Cass and others in illustration
of this purpose
The most distinguished advocates of this
nefarious doctrine, indeed, have openly avow-
ed, that the Kansas Nebraska bill contains
this doctrine, and that it was the purpose Of
those who framed the bill that it should estab
lish what the more modest advocates of the
principle, moo call popular sorereignty.n
Mr. Buchanan himself (who strongly repu-
dated this doctrine in his Sanford letter of
2lst August 1s4S,) distinctly recognises this
"squatter sovereignty" feature of the Kansas
Nebraska act, in his letter Of acceptance, avow-
ing that the people Of a Territory, LIKE THOSE
or STATE, shall decide for themselves whether
slavery shall or shall not exist within their
limits" Such is the Kansas Nebraska act,
and such is the understanding of the advocates
of that measure, and such is the view taken of
it by Mr.. Buchanan, as the refer Of the senti-
ments Of the Cincinnati Convention. Now
then for the Utah and New Mexico act OF
AZ i
1850, which Mr.. Fillmore approved, and which
the Enquirer says, "embodies precisely the
same principles Of popular chow modest y
sovereignty"
The Utah act of 1850 may be found vol. 9, D..
4ba to 4bs, United States Statutes at Large, in
the 4th section Of whichis the following proyis-
ion, to wit: "Au the laos passed by the Lsoisla-
sipe Assembly and Governor, shall be submit
ted to the Congress of the United States. and
II disorproved shall be null and of no e6sct.n
The very same provision exists in the New
Mexico act Of the same session.
1t has been said by the anti american press,
and the people have been deceived by such as
serticn, that the Kansas Nebraska act contains
this same :~sstrictive or supervising clause, and
that hence the legislative action of the Terrific
ries of Kansas and Nebraska could be restrain
ed by Congress, and therefore "squstter sove'
reignty" does not exist in the kansas; Nebras-